Karl Rove: Christie’s handling of this Bridgegate thing could give him “street cred” with tea partiers

posted at 11:21 am on January 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

“Mr. Rove has grown so controversial among some conservatives,” the NYT wrote recently, citing GOP sources, “that candidates worry that donors will not contribute to a super PAC if it is connected to [Rove's group American] Crossroads.” You trust a guy in that position, whose personal brand is now sufficiently toxic among righties that it can alter fundraising battle plans, to have a sharp read into the thinking of tea partiers, don’t you?

On the other hand, he’s not totally wrong. I noticed over the weekend how conservative media, including columnists, are starting to pay attention to the amount of coverage Bridgegate got in its first flush versus the coverage Obama’s IRS scandal received initially. No less a tea partier than Palin, while noting that what Christie’s team did is “atrocious,” was quick to add that his sins pale next to O’s. That’s the key to damage control for him on the right: Play up every available contrast with Obama, from the gravity of Obama’s misdeeds to the partisan skew in media coverage to the quick action he took to punish the guilty staffers versus Obama’s reluctance to fire anyone. He’s past the point of earning any “street cred” with conservatives but pointing out their common enemies on the left will naturally make some people on the right more reluctant to use Bridgegate against him.

Problem is, he can’t follow that strategy yet. It’s still too early, and the scandal too shady, for Christie to shift into victim mode now. Case in point:

New documents related to a traffic jam planned by a member of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) staff show for the first time how furiously Christie’s lieutenants inside the Port Authority worked to orchestrate a coverup after traffic mayhem engulfed Fort Lee last year.

Inside the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Christie’s top appointees neglected furious complaints from Fort Lee’s police chief as well as from angry rush-hour commuters. One woman called asking why the agency was “playing God with people’s jobs.”

The Republican governor’s appointees instructed subordinates to stonewall reporters who were asking questions. They even ordered up an actual “traffic study” to chronicle the impact and examine whether closing the lanes permanently might improve traffic flow. The study’s conclusion: “TBD.”

Jersey Democrats are threatening to subpoena Bridget Kelly, the Christie staffer fired for sending the “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” e-mail. Christie’s own timeline of when he first heard about those traffic problems has changed, although whether that’s an incriminating inconsistency or just a memory lapse remains to be seen. And now, as Ed noted earlier, the feds are sniffing around whether he misused funds appropriated for Sandy relief by giving the tourism ad bid to a contractor that featured him and his family in their spots. Maybe all of that will evaporate, leaving Christie free to argue that he was the target of a media witch hunt that President Bambi never had to endure. But even if it does, most tea partiers would, I think, react by making the point Mollie Hemingway made the other day: Namely, however trivial Christie’s scandal is vis-a-vis O’s, it reflects the same tendency by underlings to damage a political opponent by hurting his constituents that we saw from O with the IRS scandal and the national park closures during the shutdown. The scale of the scandals is different and media partisanship is what it is, but if you want something new and fresh in 2016, why choose a guy whose administration proved that it’s not above Chicago-style hardball retaliation and whose 2016 platform will be less about limiting the reach of government than about making it work “better”?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Because that will only get rid of some of the incumbents and I want to try to get rid of all of them.

Why not Bradley Manning or Alex Jones? Glenn Greanwald perhaps.

Because I don’t support Bradley Manning or Alex Jones, I support Edward Snowden, a champion of freedom and liberty.

Maybe you should write in Julian Assange for president, huh? Would that be a good idea?

And maybe you should vote for Adolf Hitler’s ghost you f-ing fascist.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Your vitriolic defense of DC corruptocats. How did you come to the conclusion that I should vote for anybody you mentioned above?

If the country is “destroyed” why stick around? Your work is done here, move on to somewhere else. I happen to think it’s worth fighting for.

If you think it’s worth fighting for then why are you here so adamantly trying to convince everybody else to stop fighting for it? It sounds like you’ve already surrendered and are trying to convince everybody else to as well.

??? You want the country broken up?
V7_Sport on January 13, 2014 at 11:23 PM

Yes I do. I believe that the free peoples have no business calling those who want an all encompassing government their countrymen. As such, divvy up the nation according to their principles (notice that this will divide states) and let them form their own unions. This would likely result in about 4 Americas (with the largest being the socialist super state that we use to america).

nobar on January 13, 2014 at 11:31 PM

That all worked so well the last time. It’s fun to imagine things. I believe that I should have a flying, golden unicorn and a full head of hair and washboard abs. As such, I could swoop down on a younger Charlize Theron with a more interesting personality and we could go off to my cloud castle. This would likely result in many babies, the largest of which would be an astronaut cowboy.

Because the rubble that the democrats will leave you will be so prosperous. Seen the debt clock recently?

V7_Sport on January 13, 2014 at 11:30 PM

It’s not that much different from the rubble that the republicans have left. Seen the debt clock over the years as well as recently? Before Obama broke the record for the most debt it was Bush that held the title. It doesn’t matter which party controls the government because they all work for K-Street.

There would have been no war if the North let the South go. Slavery would have died in not too short an order (20 years or so).

It’s fun to imagine things. I believe that I should have a flying, golden unicorn and a full head of hair and washboard abs. As such, I could swoop down on a younger Charlize Theron with a more interesting personality and we could go off to my cloud castle. This would likely result in many babies, the largest of which would be an astronaut cowboy.

I believe that the free peoples have no business calling those who want an all encompassing government their countrymen. As such, divvy up the nation according to their principles (notice that this will divide states) and let them form their own unions. This would likely result in about 4 Americas (with the largest being the socialist super state that we use to america).

nobar on January 13, 2014 at 11:31 PM

I believe that is one aspect of watering the tree of liberty, pruning off the unfruitful branches. Certainly trumps trying to keep a violently (anti-rule of law) divided house together.

If you think it’s worth fighting for then why are you here so adamantly trying to convince everybody else to stop fighting for it?

That’s not what I have tried to do.

V7_Sport on January 13, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Sure it is, you’re entire shtick here this evening has been aimed at trying to convince people to forget about trying to reform the GOP and Washington DC. It’s interesting that that’s exactly what Karl Rove would like people to do, and here we are in a Karl Rove thread. Do you get paid by Karl Rove or any of the many deceitful organizations that he is remotely associated with? Do you get paid by the military/industrial complex, and/or the police-state/surveillance-state complex that have corrupted DC and are bankrupting the nation? I only ask if you have a monetary interest in convincing people to submit to Washington DC and just vote for the same old crony-capitalists that are owned by the lobby groups I mentioned above, and more.

There would have been no war if the North let the South go. Slavery would have died in not too short an order (20 years or so).

Just let the south go. See ya. I don’t think it would work that way.

All mockery, no substance or alternative offered. Noted.
nobar on January 13, 2014 at 11:54 PM

You are talking about breaking up the country. Literally. Do you think people are just going to shake hands and say so long? You have said that you think it’s a good idea… Do you ever see this peacefully happening in reality? Is there ANYTHING about that viable? If not, maybe mockery is in order.
Shocking how little allegiance there is to the USA here.

Sure it is, you’re entire shtick here this evening has been aimed at trying to convince people to forget about trying to reform the GOP and Washington DC

That is not what I have done. I think reforming the GOP is laudable, however abandoning or destroying it is foolish and will set back the cause of conservatism like nothing else.

It’s interesting that that’s exactly what Karl Rove would like people to do, and here we are in a Karl Rove thread.

Paranoid much? I am not Karl Rove. I’ll skip ahead and answer this as well:

I only ask in the interest of full disclosure if you have a monetary interest in convincing people to submit to Washington DC…

That’s not what I am asking people to do and I don’t have any financial interest to post here.

Do you get paid by Karl Rove or any of the many deceitful organizations that he is remotely associated with?

Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases.

You are talking about breaking up the country. Literally. Do you think people are just going to shake hands and say so long? You have said that you think it’s a good idea… Do you ever see this peacefully happening in reality?

It’s called freedom of association, just taken to a larger level. Think of it in terms that progs get what they want (totalitarianism) and freedom advocates get what they want (liberty). Not a hard concept. And if it didn’t happen peacefully, then war was inevitable, for one side (progressives) declared that the other is unfit to be themselves. Take it up with them (hint, they also own the GOPe).

Is there ANYTHING about that viable? If not, maybe mockery is in order.
Shocking how little allegiance there is to the USA here.
V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 12:14 AM

It’s funny that you invoke the pledge, when the next line can no longer apply to the USA. We are no longer a republic, and since neither party wants to fix that, I say reset and let the communists get their communism without us as their slaves.

Romney was tolerable, unless you were 100% certain he was flat out lying over and over and over during the campaign about what he planned to do about amnesty and Obamacare.

Christie, Rubio, Bush, Ryan, Walker and every other possible candidate whose name I have heard floated who might have a real shot at winning the nomination have completely sold out on amnesty.

They want them some of that cheap, cheap labor to keep American wages down. They’ve got their overseas labor to keep most wages down, but there are those stubborn service wages for things like agriculture, house cleaning, building construction and maintenance and so on that can’t be kept down without massive infusions of cheap foreign labor into America.

So they sell out the American worker, and they are completely unacceptable. Screw ‘em.

Ron Unz thinks we should raise the minimum wage to $12/hr. I say make it $15. Make those greedy xxxxxxs pay up to get their lawns mowed.

That is not what I have done. I think reforming the GOP is laudable, however abandoning or destroying it is foolish and will set back the cause of conservatism like nothing else.

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 12:22 AM

The GOP is not conservative, has caused great harm to America and has walked hand in hand with the Demcorats for years. The only hope for the GOP is if it’s taken over by reformers like the tea party that make it right, and short of that then the country is better off if we destroy the old, corrupt GOP so that we can replace it with a new reform party.

Don’t blame me for this strategy, I would just assume start a 3rd party in parallel and compete side by side but the GOP itself and the Democrats have rigged the game so that it’s impossible for a 3rd party to compete. if you don’t like the strategy I’ve outlined above then talk to the GOP and convince them to open up the process to 3rd parties. Since I think it’s safe to assume that they won’t, because they won’t be able to compete, then there is no other option short of taking it over from within or eliminating the corrupt GOP to make way for a new reform party. The tea party has been trying to take it over from within, against my recommendations, and I’ve been going along with them, but if the Chamber of Crony Commerce, Karl Rove and other DC insider crony-capitalists spend millions or billions of dollars to smash the tea party then that closes off the option of reforming the GOP from within, and since a 3rd party is presently impossible, according to DC insiders, Rush Limbaugh and a lot of other influential people, then the only remaining option will be to try to organize enough Republicans to hold their nose and vote for the other party a time or two with the long goal in mind of trying to save the country.

That’s not what I am asking people to do and I don’t have any financial interest to post here.

That’s a rather lawyerly answer. I didn’t ask if you get paid for posting here, I basically asked if you are paid by Washington DC?

Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental disorder

I see, so wondering if somebody has a vested interest in something they are promoting is considered paranoid? /

…I mean in general. If the tea party is successful and takes over the GOP, balances the budget, which will necessitate reducing the money for military/industrial complex cronies and police/surveillance-state cronies, might your livelihood be impacted?

I think reforming the GOP is laudable, however abandoning or destroying it is foolish and will set back the cause of conservatism like nothing else.

Reform is impossible if you don’t first have a plausible threat by which to make reform inevitable. Since you demand conservatives never exercise such a threat, following your suggestions makes any reform of the party impossible

You also clearly don’t know your own party’s history. The modern conservative movement was born in rebellion against the Republican establishment. Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime store New Deal.” The war between Rockefeller Republicans and Goldwater Republican was ferocious, and Reagan ran against Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger in 1976 by questioning their patriotism.

Every election in human history has been between the les bad choice and the bad choice.

Stop making up history. Elections are not just between bad choices. Candidates in the past have often put forward a positive vision for the future, and I’ve voted for many candidates with that possibility in mind.

But if you truly believe elections are only about bad choices, then you of all people should be the first person to stop voting. For what you’re really admitting is that every person you’ve ever voted for was a bad choice who was only going to be less terrible than the opponent running against him.

That’s the most pessimistic political vision I’ve ever encountered.

So Obama is Bush’s fault. Bush gets blamed again.

Absolutely. George W Bush is the Jimmy Carter of the GOP – except that where Carter had only four years to work his dark magic, Bush was given eight. And those eight years devastated the Republican Party. It’s not a coincidence that voter identification with the GOP is still at its lowest level in decades.

Obama would’ve never been given an opportunity to rule without George W Bush. By 2008, the American public was willing to give anyone with a D behind their name an opportunity to run the country, including an untried and inexperienced liberal Democrat with no serious credentials to speak of.

It’s called succession. It’s called breaking up the country. The leaps in logic are pretty intense. Instead of doing that why not work to get back to the federal system that we had by reducing the size of Washington’s influence over the states which is what is at the core of the GOP platform?

Think of it in terms that progs get what they want (totalitarianism) and freedom advocates get what they want (liberty). Not a hard concept.

In theory running the 1 minute mile isn’t a hard concept.

And if it didn’t happen peacefully, then war was inevitable, for one side (progressives) declared that the other is unfit to be themselves.

Why not defeat or minimize them politically instead of dropping bombs? Oh I forgot, that might require voting and that is not in line with conservative principles any more. Whelp, in crazy land where this would transpire, they would lose the war, I’ll give you that.

Take it up with them (hint, they also own the GOPe).

Clever? No.

We are no longer a republic,

We should get back to being one.

and since neither party wants to fix that

Then we should make them.

I say reset and let the communists get their communism without us as their slaves.

So you just want to give them half the USA instead of all of it. So do we just vote n the red states? It’s crazy, it won’t work, but it puts you ahead of the complete capitulation crowd.

To most conservatives here, the policies and ideas that they think make for the best country come first in their political thinking. Conservatives don’t seek perfection, but they do believe in a general objective direction for the nation that they think is better than what the Washington bipartisan consensus has provided over the last two decades.

But V7_Sedan believes that you must always think about supporting the lesser evil, even if that lesser evil doesn’t move in a conservative direction at all. And since Republicans are always better than Democrats … well, you get the picture.

It’s called succession. It’s called breaking up the country. The leaps in logic are pretty intense. Instead of doing that why not work to get back to the federal system that we had by reducing the size of Washington’s influence over the states which is what is at the core of the GOP platform?

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:09 AM

How do you suggest we accomplish that task by voting for the same old centralized-power hungry GOP cronies in DC? The only thing accomplished by voting for the same-old is the same-old. The GOP has ignored the so-called GOP platform for years, all it is is propaganda. They don’t even pretend to support it any more.

“The GOP is not conservative, has caused great harm to America and has walked hand in hand with the Demcorats for years. “

You are positively maoist in your adherence to dogma. You separate American conservatism from the GOP and both will wither and die.

… so that we can replace it with a new reform party.

And while the circular firing squad is in progress in pursuit of a pipe dream that half the party will fight every step of the way what do you think the opposition will be doing?

Don’t blame me for this strategy,

I don’t, have no doubt you just hopped on the bandwagon.

if you don’t like the strategy I’ve outlined above then talk to the GOP and convince them to open up the process to 3rd parties

There are plenty of other parties, they just don’t win.

there is no other option short of taking it over from within

Working to reform it? Ever think of that? Have you ever attended a GOP meeting, even on the municipal level? All you have to do is show up and declare that you want to be heard.

eliminating the corrupt GOP to make way for a new reform party.

So divide the party and elect democrats. Got it.

The tea party has been trying to take it over from within, against my recommendations,

Another amazing thing about this site is that so many of you have such an inflated sense of self importance. Maybe you need to destroy the tea party as well because they ha the audacity to ignore your recommendations. Destroy them with the power of your mind.

then the only remaining option will be to try to organize enough Republicans to hold their nose and vote for the other party a time or two with the long goal in mind of trying to save the country.

Stupid idea.

I see, so wondering if somebody has a vested interest in something they are promoting is considered paranoid? /

So are you a DNC Moby out to persuade people to shoot themselves in the foot?

…I mean in general. If the tea party is successful and takes over the GOP, balances the budget, which will necessitate reducing the money for military/industrial complex cronies and police/surveillance-state cronies, might your livelihood be impacted?

Perhaps, indirectly, however, I am fine with that. Seriously, If I thought it would save the country you could take just about everything I have. I’m confident enough in my skill set that I would be able to re-join the middle class eventually. If not, oh well. More have given more.

Why not defeat or minimize them politically instead of dropping bombs? Oh I forgot, that might require voting and that is not in line with conservative principles any more. Whelp, in crazy land where this would transpire, they would lose the war, I’ll give you that.

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:09 AM

What if it doesn’t matter which party you vote for because they all serve their K-Street cronies rather than the American people?

Then we should make them.

How? How are you going to “make them”? What ammunition do you have? If you give them everything they want, (by voting for the same old crooks), why should they care what you/we think?

Reform is impossible if you don’t first have a plausible threat by which to make reform inevitable. Since you demand conservatives never exercise such a threat, following your suggestions makes any reform of the party impossible

If you keep voting for the same old crooks, you keep giving them your money and you keep doing everything they say then there’s no reason for them to listen to you. That’s the exact same problem that black Americans have with the Democrat Party. The only way to “make them” listen and change is to make them regret it if they don’t.

The key point here is that you must at least have a bit of faith in the basic good will of the guy you are voting for, or what you are voting for is always a blind chance.

If you voted for Bush in 2000, and you were voting against the growth of government, and you were voting against nation building, and you were voting for less government intrusion into our lives, and you were voting for someone you thought would vigorously enforce our immigration laws what you actually got was HAD.

Would it have been even worse under Gore? Maybe. But we don’t really know. Because it did not happen.

And here’s the kicker: It hadn’t looked like Bush would be bad at all.

So why should we vote for someone who tells us up front he’s going to screw the beejeebers out of us??? Why NOTvote for the other guy and hope he is as big a liar to his supporters as our ‘leaders’ are to us?

You are positively maoist in your adherence to dogma. You separate American conservatism from the GOP and both will wither and die.

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:31 AM

That’s not necessarily true. What was doesn’t always have to be, especially in times such as these when old alliances are in flux and the political environs have changed. If America is to continue to be artificially locked into a two party system then I think one of the parties should represent the majority of the country that leans toward freedom and liberty, and the other party can be for all the rejects that prefer authoritarian statism. If small-gov conservatives can adjust to a new freedom party, as they’re beginning to, and learn to get along with libertarians and even civil libertarians on the left like Snowden, for example, then I think the country will be much better off.

The biggest reason that the Republican Party is so unpopular is because of the RINO crony-capitalists in DC that only seem to care about amnesty and serving their K-Street cronies. Get rid of the DC corruptocrats in the GOP and most of the Republican base is very viable, even many of the social conservatives that DC hates, (except for the progressive ones)—especially if it’s a new party without the Republican label that’s been trashed by the DC-GOP. I’m certainly not a traditional conservative but I like them a heck of a lot better than the corrupt GOP establishment, I get along with them pretty well.

And while the circular firing squad is in progress in pursuit of a pipe dream that half the party will fight every step of the way what do you think the opposition will be doing?

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:31 AM

This isn’t a circular firing squad, the GOP establishment isn’t on my side, they’re not even on the side of the American people: they’re on the side of their globalist K-Street cronies. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are an obstacle to their exploitation of the American people, including me. The only circle in this picture is the circle of wagons that the Democrats and GOP have formed in DC to protect themselves from the tea party and the anger of the American people.

They don’t win because they’re not allowed to debate or otherwise engage in the political process unless they’re a billionaire like Perot, which so far has been unique. In other countries 3rd parties rise up and grow to prominence all the time, but here in the US the K-Street Crony Party in DC has rigged the game in their favor to prevent any reform to their racket.

Reform is impossible if you don’t first have a plausible threat by which to make reform inevitable.

Carrot and stick is the way you move anyone.

Since you demand conservatives never exercise such a threat,

Where? What I demand is that we not be stupid. Apparently that’s an impossibility. I also demand a little recognition that the system of governance is not at fault, it’s that we haven’t been living by the rules that we have pledged ourselves to follow. The solution to that is not to toss the whole thing into the trash but to get back to what we were supposed to be.
I see no difference between the decadence of someone like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn who says that the USA is rotten to the core and some of the commenters here who have come to the same conclusion from the opposite perspective.

following your suggestions makes any reform of the party impossible

Those suggestions being: Getting involved, backing conservative, electable candidates and actually working to see that they get elected and then holding them accountable once they are? That’s just crazy talk. Much smarter and to the point to actually vote for socialists to peruse conservative principles, right?

You also clearly don’t know your own party’s history.

Stop. Just stop.

Elections are not just between bad choices. Candidates in the past have often put forward a positive vision for the future, and I’ve voted for many candidates with that possibility in mind.

So who was the last perfect candidate that you voted for? Who was the last perfect person you saw? I thought humanity nailed that guy to a cross. No, you don’t get 100% of what you want out of any relationship. Ever. Life 101.

But if you truly believe elections are only about bad choices, then you of all people should be the first person to stop voting.

Another giant leap in logic… You vote for the best that you can get then work to make them better.

For what you’re really admitting is that every person you’ve ever voted for was a bad choice who was only going to be less terrible than the opponent running against him.

See above. The best you can get isn’t a bad choice.

…those eight years devastated the Republican Party. It’s not a coincidence that voter identification with the GOP is still at its lowest level in decades.

So the logical thing to do is stay at home or vote democrat, Because Bush spent too much, and he did, although he had a 2 front war to contend with, it’s the same as dumping trillions of dollars into the unions and the parasites and the lobbyists.

To most conservatives here, the policies and ideas that they think make for the best country come first in their political thinking

Why are so many of them declaring the country “dead” and “crap” then? Seriously, when did it become conservative to have a fit and toss all your toys out of the crib?

onservatives don’t seek perfection,

Lots of “all or nothing” going on here.

But V7_Sedan

Funny dog martin.

believes that you must always think about supporting the lesser evil

LOL, so something less than perfection is “evil”. No, it’s the cost of doing business with humans, you don’t get everything you want and you have to be a big boy and try to make the best of it.

even if that lesser evil doesn’t move in a conservative direction at all.

Better to have a caretaker in office than a demolition machine. Either way, what you are still ignoring is that once your vote it’s not all over. You elect the best you can get then you work to keep them accountable. Above all, you do no harm, that’s common sense, that’s patriotism.

Another amazing thing about this site is that so many of you have such an inflated sense of self importance. Maybe you need to destroy the tea party as well because they ha the audacity to ignore your recommendations. Destroy them with the power of your mind.

So are you a DNC Moby out to persuade people to shoot themselves in the foot?

V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:31 AM

No, I grew up in a Republican family and supported Reagan as a teenager until Iran/Contra, which I blamed on Bush at the time, who I never liked. I became an independent after Reagan left office.

Now you’re turn, is your livelihood dependent on DC? Are you part of the military/industrial complex or the police/surveillance-state complex or any other vested interest in DC? I’m beginning to suspect so.

Dude, you’re the one advising us all to throw away the only stick we have and to give away the carrot for free. There is no consistency in what you say. It will be interesting if you ever answer the question about whether you have a vested interest in perpetuation the status quo in DC.

…I mean in general. If the tea party is successful and takes over the GOP, balances the budget, which will necessitate reducing the money for military/industrial complex cronies and police/surveillance-state cronies, might your livelihood be impacted?

Perhaps, indirectly, however, I am fine with that. Seriously, If I thought it would save the country you could take just about everything I have. I’m confident enough in my skill set that I would be able to re-join the middle class eventually. If not, oh well. More have given more.

It’s called succession. It’s called breaking up the country. The leaps in logic are pretty intense. Instead of doing that why not work to get back to the federal system that we had by reducing the size of Washington’s influence over the states which is what is at the core of the GOP platform?

The national party has no interest in this, see Amnesty. And the GOPe pays lip service to the platform, then votes according to it’s own desire for power.

In theory running the 1 minute mile isn’t a hard concept.

Principles are often tough to carry out. National Divorce is worth the risk.

Why not defeat or minimize them politically instead of dropping bombs? Oh I forgot, that might require voting and that is not in line with conservative principles any more. Whelp, in crazy land where this would transpire, they would lose the war, I’ll give you that.

As long as the progressives in charge have an army of stupid people, this is impossible. And you can’t minimize zealots of their magnitude.

Clever? No.

The GOPe is majority Progressive. Facts hurt.

We should get back to being one.

The amount of principled stands would simply be too great for the current crop of pols (think to the right of Cruz, or at least bolder in speech). Repeal 16th&17th amendments, 90% slash of all spending, 4.6% sales tax, etc.

Then we should make them.

And how does enabling them accomplish this?

So you just want to give them half the USA instead of all of it. So do we just vote n the red states? It’s crazy, it won’t work, but it puts you ahead of the complete capitulation crowd.
V7_Sport on January 14, 2014 at 1:09 AM

What I wrote

I believe that the free peoples have no business calling those who want an all encompassing government their countrymen. As such, divvy up the nation according to their principles (notice that this will divide states) and let them form their own unions. This would likely result in about 4 Americas (with the largest being the socialist super state that we use to america).

nobar on January 13, 2014 at 11:31 PM

There are alot of purple and blue districts in Big Red, and I say let them decide which new nation they live in.

And here’s the kicker: It hadn’t looked like Bush would be bad at all.

So why should we vote for someone who tells us up front he’s going to screw the beejeebers out of us??? Why NOT vote for the other guy and hope he is as big a liar to his supporters as our ‘leaders’ are to us?

fadetogray on January 14, 2014 at 1:54 AM

I hated Bush’s dad so I thought Bush Jr. Looked pretty bad, (not that I ever suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome), so I reluctantly admit I supported McCain in 2000 and thought McCain might actually be pretty good. In the following years I realized that McCain would have been even worse so I didn’t vote for him in 2008, although I liked Palin, but McCain was too bad. I would have voted for Palin/McCain. In 2010 I voted Republican all the way down the ballot in the spirit of the tea party. We won, of course. But then the GOP betrayed the tea party so in ’12 I only voted for liberty candidates. In ’14 I’ll be voting against every incumbent unless they are credible tea party and/or liberty candidates, and if the GOP establishment and their cronies are successful in destroying the tea party in the primaries then I’ll be employing the strategy I talked about above.

So why should we vote for someone who tells us up front he’s going to screw the beejeebers out of us??? Why NOT vote for the other guy and hope he is as big a liar to his supporters as our ‘leaders’ are to us?

fadetogray on January 14, 2014 at 1:54 AM

I know, it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in power, the country heads in the same direction regardless. If McCain had won he probably would have invaded half the countries in the world, unfortunately to help the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, so he probably couldn’t have afforded to implement National Romneycare like Obama did, but if not for the fact that McCain has a proclivity towards bankrupting the USA with proxy wars he’s likely to have tried to implement national Romneycare too.

And if McCain had won then the US would be overrun with far more illegal aliens than we already have and he would have made greater inroads than Obama into turning America into a fascist police and surveillance state. There’s some differences but the crony elite are all essentially the same.

1) get involved in the party and work to exert your influence.
2)Support and help get the best people you can find elected
3)Work to hold them accountable.

What if it doesn’t matter which party you vote for because they all serve their K-Street cronies rather than the American people?

If that’s the case then starting a new party wont do any good because k-street will still be there. Right? It’s free speech, protected by the constitution.
The answer is to make them more concerned about you and adhering to the principles they were elected to uphold than k-street and to make k-street less relevant to them. It takes work. Really, what you are insisting on is “the best person who will always do the right thing” and what will work is “someone who can be radially made to do the right thing”. Someone like Harry Reid wont be made to do the right thing because he doesn’t care what you think and even though he comes from a relatively conservative state he can’t see past his contempt for you to be persuaded to do anything.

That’s not necessarily true.

Yes, divided we fall. Regan flirted with 3rd party as well and came to the same conclusion.

If small-gov conservatives can adjust to a new freedom party, as they’re beginning to,

According to whom? There’s the freedom party, the new Whigs, the constitution party, Reform party, Libertarian party, independent party, etc, etc. How well did they do? Why is it on conservatives to adjust? Why don’t you adjust?

and learn to get along with libertarians and even civil libertarians on the left like Snowden, for example, then I think the country will be much better off.

I don’t, Snowden crossed the line when he left the USA and started trading state secrets for his comfort. There are lots of people like me who think he should be shot who consider themselves conservatives. If we have to work to get along with you why not just work to get along with the squishes? Where do I draw the line? I don’t want legalized pot, I don’t want polygamy, etc. Now what? Think people are going to hop on bard the Snowden train so quick? I don’t want to get along with that. Many conservatives don’t.

I’m certainly not a traditional conservative….

The hell you say.

American people: they’re on the side of their globalist K-Street cronies

Enough of the K-street cronies, I get it. Still constationally protected speech.

They don’t win because they’re not allowed to debate or otherwise engage in the political process unless they’re a billionaire like Perot,

Bull, they don’t get into the debates because their poll numbers are minuscule because they attract misfits and shut-ins.

Someone like Harry Reid wont be made to do the right thing because he doesn’t care what you think

And neither does Boehner, Pelosi or McConnell. They’ve proven it every time.

Yes, divided we fall. Regan flirted with 3rd party as well and came to the same conclusion.

Together with crony-capitalists and totalitarians we fall.

I don’t, Snowden crossed the line when he left the USA and started trading state secrets for his comfort.

Well if that’s the way you feel about the hero who exposed fascists for what they are then that probably explains why we disagree on so much.

I don’t want legalized pot

And I and a majority of Americans do. That’s the thing, people like you and the GOP establishment are a hindrance to our electoral viability. If we drop people like you, Boehner, McConnel and other then we’ll be more attractive to American voters. However I advocate a federalist approach so if the majority of some states and localities agree with you then I’m fine with that as long as people like you don’t try to impose your views on free people in other states.

Principles are often tough to carry out. National Divorce is worth the risk.

No, it isn’t. It will shatter what took centuries to build and for nothing, you aren’t going too be able to politically/ethnically cleanse the USA into 4 parts. The thought of it is incredibly depressing.

As long as the progressives in charge have an army of stupid people, this is impossible. And you can’t minimize zealots of their magnitude.

Plenty of zealots around, not a lot of effective action.

The GOPe is majority Progressive. Facts hurt.

Saying it is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. You want something different than what is going to ever happen and I am fine with that.

And how does enabling them accomplish this?

It doesn’t, see what I actually wrote.

What I wrote
I believe that the free peoples have no business calling those who want an all encompassing government their countrymen.

Here at least
we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

Where [have I said conservatives never exercise such a threat]? What I demand is that we not be stupid.

The only person I’ve read here who talks about conservatives supporting the Democrats by their deliberate and calculated inaction is you. In fact, your political strategy, which calls for always supporting the lesser evil, practically demands you support Democrats, so long as they call themselves Republicans and are slightly less evil than the actual Democrats.

I also demand a little recognition that the system of governance is not at fault, it’s that we haven’t been living by the rules that we have pledged ourselves to follow. The solution to that is not to toss the whole thing into the trash but to get back to what we were supposed to be.

That’s like saying that war is never the answer. Some people actually believe that cliché. But you and I both know that war is sometimes a necessity.

The Republican Party is in a civil war right now. You’re just demanding that one side – the conservatives – stop fighting. But we’re not going to do that as long as the establishment continues fighting us and our aims.

No conservative here is counseling a permanent wartime footing, but they are demanding victory in this civil war. You’re advising them to surrender.

I see no difference between the decadence of someone like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn who says that the USA is rotten to the core and some of the commenters here who have come to the same conclusion from the opposite perspective.

Gee, for a guy who claims to always be on the lookout for the lesser evil you sure come up with some strange equivalencies. That’s like saying you see no difference between Mao and some garden variety European socialist.

Those suggestions being: Getting involved, backing conservative, electable candidates and actually working to see that they get elected and then holding them accountable once they are?

Electability is the standard complaint against all right wing candidates, and it’s been used against every right wing politician from Goldwater to Reagan to Palin to every candidate the Tea Party supports.

Yes, even Ronald Reagan who won 49 states in 1984 was called unelectable in the 1970s. Jimmy Carter thought he was a lucky man running against Reagan instead of some GOP establishment pol like Howard Baker.

Rather than worry about electability why not just worry about doing the right thing and let the elections take care of themselves?

So who was the last perfect candidate that you voted for? Who was the last perfect person you saw?

There’s that word “perfect” again.

I voted for Romney in 2012. No conservative would ever call Romney a “perfect” candidate. He was a marginal candidate at best, but I held my nose and voted for him. I did not vote for McCain in 2008, however, because I think the Arizona senator likes to run against his own party more than he does against the opposition party. At least Romney pretended to actually like conservatives.

In my state, California, I also did not vote for Arnold in either of two runs for governor. In 2003, I proudly cast my ballot for the real Republican, Tom McClintock, instead. And in 2006 I voted for the Libertarian candidate as a protest vote.

Not voting for McCain and Arnold have been among my proudest political moments, and I strongly urge other conservatives to have the courage to deny their support to these proud RINOs. They’ll feel a lot better about themselves and they will be able to make stronger arguments to independents.

Another giant leap in logic… You vote for the best that you can get then work to make them better.

Nope, that’s not what you said. You claimed that all elections in history (!!!) are about finding the lesser evil. Those were your words, not mine. You said nothing about voting for the best or making them better.

So the logical thing to do is stay at home or vote Democrat …

No, the logical thing is to realize the difference between supporting the lesser evil – as you claim everyone’s guiding political philosophy must tell them to do – and supporting a positive vision for the future, which most conservatives here believe is no longer possible with the current brand of establishment-supported Republican candidates.

Because Bush spent too much, and he did, although he had a 2 front war to contend with, it’s the same as dumping trillions of dollars into the unions and the parasites and the lobbyists.

Well, I’m just glad that the GOP under Bush and DeLay and Hastert didn’t support K Street.

Probably because they look to the GOP for a viable political alternative to liberalism and they aren’t finding it. That makes them nervous.

And you’re now telling them they shouldn’t be looking for a viable alternative to liberalism because that’s perfectionism isn’t possible and one always has to look fort eh lesser evil. That makes you far more cynical than they are.

Better to have a caretaker in office than a demolition machine.

A caretaker is not a “lesser evil.” The choice you’re really giving conservatives is voting for either the small bulldozer or voting for the wrecking ball, and that’s no choice at all.

And you’re now telling them they shouldn’t be looking for a viable alternative to liberalism because perfectionism isn’t possible and one always has to look for the lesser evil. That makes you far more cynical than they are.

The only person I’ve read here who talks about conservatives supporting the Democrats by their deliberate and calculated inaction is you.

Oh well..
Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, now your boy floatingrock as well as others here have, some claiming to have voted for Obama out of their adherence to conservative principles. Again, people openly advocating that conservatives vote for democrats because of let it burn or something, it being the country. If you aren’t OK with that you probably shouldn’t be wading into the middle of the conversation and choosing the side that you think will get you the most atta-boys. If you are, ok with that you should rub both Iq points together and come up with a credible explanation as to how it’s in a conservative’s best interests to elect a socialist who resents the USA.

In fact, your political strategy, which calls for always supporting the lesser evil,.

Mischaracterizing what I have written isn’t an argument winner. It’s not persuasive. Really, is it that you are not getting it or is this all you can throw at me? I can copy and paste from my previous response: Getting involved, backing conservative, electable candidates and actually working to see that they get elected and then holding them accountable once they are.. not quite what the same thing, is it? Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable.. not quite the same thing, right? Got it?

The Republican Party is in a civil war right now. You’re just demanding that one side – the conservatives – stop fighting

Again, stop telling me what my position is and getting it dead wrong, I am demanding that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot. While it may feel good to alienate someone who may prove to be useful, it’s not smart. You don’t gain influence by losing elections. Ever. You don’t succeed by insisting that we run people like Christine O’Donnell. Fight for what you want, even if it isn’t what I want. Fight the good fight and you will have my respect. Stay at home and complain here that it’s all gone to hell and no, I can’t fake it.

But we’re not going to do that as long as the establishment continues fighting us and our aims.

How? (Where is this establishment) What aims are they fighting? Is the only way of fighting back to take your bat and your ball and to go home?

“No conservative here is counseling a permanent wartime footing, but they are demanding victory in this civil war.”

So after all the RINOs are purged, how many votes are you going to have? The GOP is Libertarians, So-cons, Fi-cons and people who are in-between. How well are you going to do with 33% of 48%? You re gnawing on my ass and skipping over the decidedly non-conservative who has a man crush on Edward Snowdwn and wants to legalize dope… He wants to win his end of the GOP or he’s going to stay home as well. (Meanwhile I’m the only one voting and I’m being called a RINO.) Surely, on some level you can recognize that this is ridicules and counterproductive.

Gee, for a guy who claims to always be on the lookout for the lesser evil you sure come up with some strange equivalencies

I never claimed that. However, In effect, if both think the country is “crap” and both think it ought to be brought down because they picture themselves presiding over the rubble, what’s the difference? None when you have one actually voting for the other.

Yes, even Ronald Reagan who won 49 states in 1984 was called unelectable in the 1970s.

I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO. (He signed the most liberal abortion bill in the USA as governor of California. He was soft on immigration and did brig us the biggest illegal amnesty in the countries history and I remember my father even complaining he was am effeminate actor (dyed his hair) who was soft on communism. I wonder how many here would have stayed home for Reagan after a few of Allahpundents servings of raw meat? You would have proudly stood with moonbeam and encouraged others to do the same perhaps.

Rather than worry about electability why not just worry about doing the right thing and let the elections take care of themselves?

Because things don’t take care of themselves. They require work. When things are left to take care of themselves they fail.

In my state, California…

RINO. You are going to be expelled from the union if some get their way because you are a government loving communist and need to be punished for it.

I strongly urge other conservatives to have the courage to deny their support to these proud RINO

There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING conservative about not doing whatever it takes to keep Obama out of the office of the presidency. You effectively voted for Obama and Jerry Brown and comically, you are proud of it.

Probably because they look to the GOP for a viable political alternative to liberalism and they aren’t finding it. That makes them nervous.

So you are excusing people referring to the country as crap because they are “nervous”. It’s the GOP’s fault. Everything seems to be. Isn’t that pretty infantile? I haven’t needed an all purpose scapegoat since I was 3.

And you’re now telling them they shouldn’t be looking for a viable alternative to liberalism because that’s perfectionism isn’t possible

Not what I told them, you haven’t understood a word. Sitting at home, flushing your vote on someone who doesn’t have a chance of winning or voting for a democrat isn’t “a viable alternative to liberalism”, it’s enabling liberalism. If you are doing that out of supposed conservative principles you are a moron.

A caretaker is not a “lesser evil.”

In that case it was.

The choice you’re really giving conservatives is voting for either the small bulldozer or voting for the wrecking ball,

Vote for the bulldozer and then dig a tank trap. Don’t you get it yet? Voting isn’t the end of your obligation. You vote and then work to keep them accountable. (for the dozenth time) You don’t capitulate and then pat your self on the back for being a lazy turd.

“Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, now your boy floatingrock as well as others here have, some claiming to have voted for Obama out of their adherence to conservative principles. “

Find the quotes. So far I’ve seen you misrepresent both your own language and mine, so I’ll assume you’re also misrepresenting these other posters’ language until you prove otherwise.

What I’ve seen so far in this thread are conservatives who’re unhappy with the choice of Republican candidates they are given by the Republican moneymen, and also by how the GOP establishment is treating them on important conservative issues. They’re right; you’re wrong. Simple as that.

Mischaracterizing what I have written isn’t an argument winner.

I’m not misrepresenting anything. You said – and I quote – “Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice.”

Those are your words. Not mine. And those words are telling me that I have no option but to vote for a “bad choice,” but that I should be a grown-up about it and vote for the “less bad choice.”

If you don’t like these words when they are quoted back to you, feel free to retract them at any time. But don’t pretend you didn’t say them.

Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable.. not quite the same thing, right? Got it?

No, I don’t get it.

You can’t hold any politician accountable if you don’t also hold some potential threat over them, and as I told you before you want to take away the only threat Republican voters have against their own poor leaders, which is a withdrawal of support. You’re against accountability.

Again, stop telling me what my position is and getting it dead wrong, I am demanding that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

We conservatives are also telling you to stop shooting us in the foot. Whenever you support what you’ve already acknowledge is a “bad choice” (“Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice”), you’re telling the rest of the world that the shitty things which happen under Republican rule are inevitable, and you’re just pretending that you have the foresight to know that they would have been worse under Democratic rule.

Many people are going to disagree with your insight. Not just conservatives, who believe that a freer society is possible with the right political leadership, but also independents and the old Reagan Democrats, who once voted Republican because of their hopes and not their fears.

When these people hear you talk about the wonderful rule of George W Bush, they get turned off. They know the history of that administration as well as you do, since they lived through it, and they’re well aware of how pitiful it was. So if you’re going to try to argue that it was a “less bad choice,” good luck with that. I suspect most independent-minded voters will believe they can do better.

So stop shooting us in the foot, V7_Sedan by forcing people to support bad political leadership. We could do a lot better if you just got out of our way.

”So after all the RINOs are purged, how many votes are you going to have?”

When you purge all the conservatives, how many votes will you have? This works both ways.

”The GOP is Libertarians, So-cons, Fi-cons and people who are in-between. How well are you going to do with 33% of 48%?”

Unfortunately, only one part of the grand Republican coalition is getting any love today, and it’s the corporatist types. Businesses need and deserve support from the GOP, but so do the many other important members of the coalition. Appeals have to be made to everyone in the party, not just a select few.

”I remember, [Ronald Reagan] was called the equivalent of a RINO.”

No, he was not. You’re just regurgitating a line from the mainstream media.

Reagan was a well-known conservative from the start of his political career. He cut his political teeth supporting Barry Goldwater.

But social conservatism in the early sixties was not as self-consciously political as it would later be when it began reacting against the liberal excesses in the late sixties and early seventies. So, yes, Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill in California. But when the religious right became a political force, Reagan changed his mind about the law he signed and began putting out pro-life rhetoric.

Illegal immigration was also not the same issue in 1986 that it would later become, so I don’t know why anyone would blame Reagan for his amnesty when it was the first of its kind and most voters still didn’t realize how cynical Washington would become about American citizenship.

So stop with this liberal crap about Reagan being too liberal for today’s GOP. That’s the left’s line. In his own time, Reagan was criticized by members of both parties, and called unelectable, because he was too conservative.

Because things don’t take care of themselves. They require work. When things are left to take care of themselves they fail.

You sound like one of those liberals who is always saying that government needs to do something.

But of course sometimes the best course of action is to take no action. And so it occasionally goes in politics.

There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING conservative about not doing whatever it takes to keep Obama out of the office of the presidency. You effectively voted for Obama and Jerry Brown and comically, you are proud of it.

No I didn’t. I worked hard to convince other Republicans at the time – well before the elections – that we were on the wrong track and needed to change. But most Republicans were like you. They preferred the cozy, warm environment of a favored politician’s bunghole to hearing the truth.

The sad truth is that once you sign on the “less bad choice,” you’ll always find some reason not to push your elected officials to do better once they’re in office.

“Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, now your boy floatingrock as well as others here have, some claiming to have voted for Obama out of their adherence to conservative principles. “

Find the quotes. So far I’ve seen you misrepresent both your own language and mine, so I’ll assume you’re also misrepresenting these other posters’ language until you prove otherwise.

What I’ve seen so far in this thread are conservatives who’re unhappy with the choice of Republican candidates that are funneled to them by the Republican moneymen, and also by how the GOP establishment is treating them on important conservative issues. They’re right; you’re wrong. Simple as that.

Mischaracterizing what I have written isn’t an argument winner.

I’m not misrepresenting anything. You said – and I quote – “Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice.”

Those are your words. Not mine. And those words are telling me that I have no option but to vote for a “bad choice,” but that I should be a grown-up about it and vote for the “less bad choice.”

If you don’t like these words when they are quoted back to you, feel free to retract them at any time. But don’t pretend you didn’t say them.

Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable.. not quite the same thing, right? Got it?

No, I don’t get it.

You can’t hold any politician accountable if you don’t also hold some potential threat over them, and as I told you before you want to take away the only threat Republican voters have against their own poor leaders, which is a withdrawal of support. You’re against accountability.

Again, stop telling me what my position is and getting it dead wrong, I am demanding that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

We conservatives are also telling you to stop shooting us in the foot.

Whenever you support what you’ve already acknowledge is a “bad choice” (“Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice”), you’re telling the rest of the world that the shitty things which happen under Republican rule are inevitable, and you’re just pretending that you have the foresight to know that they would have been worse under Democratic rule.

Many people are going to disagree with your insight. Not just conservatives, who believe that a freer society is possible with the right political leadership, but also independents and the old Reagan Democrats, who once voted Republican because of their hopes and not their fears.

When these people hear you talk about the wonderful rule of George W Bush, they get turned off. They know the history of that administration as well as you do, since they lived through it, and they’re well aware of how pitiful it was. So if you’re going to try to argue that it was a “less bad choice,” good luck with that. I suspect most independent-minded voters will believe they can do better.

So stop shooting us in the foot, V7_Sedan by forcing people to support bad political leadership. We could do a lot better if you just got out of our way.

”So after all the RINOs are purged, how many votes are you going to have?”

When you purge all the conservatives, how many votes will you have? This works both ways.

”The GOP is Libertarians, So-cons, Fi-cons and people who are in-between. How well are you going to do with 33% of 48%?”

Unfortunately, only one part of the grand Republican coalition is getting any love today, and it’s the corporatist types. Businesses need and deserve support from the GOP, but so do the many other important members of the coalition. Appeals have to be made to everyone in the party, not just a select few.

”I remember, [Ronald Reagan] was called the equivalent of a RINO.”

No, he was not. You’re just regurgitating a line from the mainstream media.

Reagan was a well-known conservative from the start of his political career. He cut his political teeth supporting Barry Goldwater.

But social conservatism in the early sixties was not as self-consciously political as it would later be when it began reacting against the liberal excesses of the late sixties and early seventies. So, yes, Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill in California. But when the religious right became a political force, Reagan changed his mind about the law he signed and began putting out pro-life rhetoric.

Illegal immigration was also not the same issue in the seventies and eighties that it would later become, so I don’t know why anyone would blame Reagan for his amnesty when it was the first of its kind and most voters still didn’t realize how cynical Washington would become about granting American citizenship to just about anyone willing to steal it.

So stop with this liberal crap about Reagan being too left wing for today’s GOP. That’s the left’s favorite line. In his own time, Governor Reagan was criticized by members of both parties – and called unelectable – because he was considered too conservative.

How did that work out?

Because things don’t take care of themselves. They require work. When things are left to take care of themselves they fail.

You sound like one of those liberals who is always saying that government needs to do something.

But of course sometimes the best course of action is to take no action. And so it occasionally goes in politics.

There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING conservative about not doing whatever it takes to keep Obama out of the office of the presidency. You effectively voted for Obama and Jerry Brown and comically, you are proud of it.

No I didn’t. I worked hard to convince other Republicans well before those elections that we were on the wrong track and needed to change. But most Republicans were like you. They preferred the cozy, warm environment of a favored politician’s bunghole to hearing the truth.

The sad fact is that once you sign on for the “less bad choice,” you’ll always find some reason not to push your elected officials to do better when they’re in office.

We all love inspiring rhetoric, but after the rhetoric has been spun all elections are about choosing the lesser evil. It is a natural corollary to the human condition. Arguing against that cold underlying reality makes one look like a purist or a utopianist.

In this particular struggle, we must have some kind of leverage over the lesser evil after he gets elected, or he will quickly morph into being little to no different than the greater evil. He will sell out to the globalist elites. It will make no sense for him not to do it.

Faux conservatives such as McCain who completely fail to recognize they need conservatives willing to fall on their swords defending them in order to keep themselves from being impeached (the Left will never forgive them for being Republicans no matter how many leftwing policies they embrace and advance – see: Richard Nixon) are much worse than letting the Democrat win since they advance the progressive ball downfield and we get the blame for the bad effects.

Unfortunately, we are now facing an entire roster of real potential nominees all of whom will not only turn on us after the election but have already turned on us on the issue of amnesty/dirt cheap labor, the central issue of our era (yes, more important that Obamacare because it continually resets the chess table with wave after wave of new pro-socialism voters).

The GOP establishment is circling the wagons around their new standard bearer.Like McCain and Romney before him,Christie is he RINO establishment choice to lead the GOP to victory in 2016.Wait a minute! Victory? When will these idiots face the facts-RINOs lose Presidential elections.No matter,they and their allies among the elitist pseudo-conserative punditry,along with FOX News(which I am convinced is owned lock,stock an barrel by the GOP establishment)will continue to defend Christie as the target of personal attacks and tout his position as the GOP frontrunner for 2016, and the only candidate that stands a chance against Queen Hillary.I think Christie could eat his young in a feeding frenzy and these fools would still come to his defense.Contrast that with their relative silence when one after another conservative challenger was slandered,libelled,and ultimately destroyed in 2008,so RINO Romney could be anointed as their candidate.When will conservatives wisen up and destroy these RINOs the same way?

In fact, even if he didn’t say it, he can kiss my a$$. If KR endorses someone, said someone is off my list. KR is NOT a conservative, so I no longer even read articles about him, including this one. Just the headline is enough for me.

Find them yourself, you can start by actually reading and comprehending this thread. Perhaps you wont be so quick to wade into others conversations after doing your own homework.

So far I’ve seen you misrepresent both your own language and mine,

Bull, that’s your playbook. It’s all up there, anyone can see that I haven’t.

so I’ll assume you’re also misrepresenting these other posters’ language until you prove otherwise.

What would I have to gain by that? Whatever, you are obviously going to see whatever is convenient for you to see.

What I’ve seen so far in this thread are conservatives who’re unhappy with the choice of Republican candidates…

Life isn’t fair, most people learn that by age 5. now what? Fix the problem or side with the democrats?

they are given by the Republican moneymen,

And again, the argument circle begins a-new: You are given candidates by the primaries, not some “establishment” not some “moneymen”. That’s part of the idiotic mythology that the moron herd here likes to wallow in. There isn’t someone out there in establishment headquarters picking and choosing who can run for you. Remember this:THE “GOP” DOESN”T “PICK” CANDIDATES. THEY ARE PICKED IN THE PRIMARIES BY THE VOTERS. THERE IS NO “ESTABLISHMENT” PICKING “SQUISH” CANDIDATES, IT’S OTHER VOTERS. ALL YOU ARE DOING BY STAYING AT HOME ON ELECTION DAY IS HELPING TO ELECT THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME.
That was our introduction, Refute that. Prove that wrong. Lets see some links to this GOP establishment picking your candidate. Don’t like the candidates? Run yourself. When you fail it won’t be because of the establishment.

and also by how the GOP establishment is treating them on important conservative issues.

Who is this establishment? You have a problem with person X take it up with person X.

They’re right; you’re wrong. Simple as that.

Uh no, When someone comes to the conclusion that it’s a good idea to sit home or actually vote for a socialist out of their conservative principles they are wrong. Stupidly so. Obviously so. When they are voting democrat to deliberately bring about the worst they are acting as traitors to the country.

I’m not misrepresenting anything. You said – and I quote – “Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice.”

Is that all there was to it? The point that you refuse to get is that voting isn’t the end of your obligation. You vote for the least bad alternative and then work to hold them accountable.

Those are your words. Not mine. And those words are telling me that I have no option but to vote for a “bad choice,”

Imperfect versus more imperfect.

I should be a grown-up about it and vote for the “less bad choice.”

…and…… Without the second part it’s meaning is not the same. (you know this of course)

If you don’t like these words when they are quoted back to you, feel free to retract them at any time. But don’t pretend you didn’t say them.

When you cut the message in half it misrepresents the meaning.

Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable.. not quite the same thing, right? Got it?
No, I don’t get it.

I’m out of 2 by 4’s. There is no way to boil that down into simpler language, seriously. Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable isn’t simply choosing the lessor of 2 evils, it’s taking the best you can get and working to make it better. It isn’t “accepting evil” if you continue the effort to rectify what is wrong.

You can’t hold any politician accountable if you don’t also hold some potential threat over them, and as I told you before you want to take away the only threat Republican voters have against their own poor leaders, which is a withdrawal of support..

There’s money, there’s letter-writing campaigns, there’s phone blitzes, there’s positive press, there’s negative press, there’s bringing business into districts, here is removing business from districts, there is face to face meetings and protests and getting out the vote campaigns, and a million and one other ways that the opposition knows quite well. You don’t simply say “I’ll probably be voting Democrat down the line in ’14 and ’16 hoping to eliminate the GOP” because that’s stupid and self defeating. It’s also lazy if it’s all that you are doing. If you are doing it to harm the country and hasten the collapse it’s still traitorous.

Whenever you support what you’ve already acknowledge is a “bad choice”

Every choice, ever, has always been the least bad choice. There has never been perfection. You still don’t get this.

you’re telling the rest of the world that the shitty things which happen under Republican rule are inevitable,

No, you have to work to prevent them. Amazing. Voting for the best you can get and then working to keep them accountable isn’t simply choosing the lessor of 2 evils, it’s taking the best you can get and working to make it better. It isn’t “accepting evil” if you continue the effort to rectify what is wrong. You just don’t want to be bothered.

and you’re just pretending that you have the foresight to know that they would have been worse under Democratic rule.

LOL! OPEN YOUR EYES, LOOK AT THE MESS.

Many people are going to disagree with your insight. Not just conservatives, who believe that a freer society is possible with the right political leadership, but also independents and the old Reagan Democrats, who once voted Republican because of their hopes and not their fears.

So they don’t see that the democrats have made a huge mess, snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory against the islamist terrorists who murdered 3000, mostly civilians on 9/11/01, socialized large swaths of the economy and flushed trillions in debt.. Well, then they aren’t that bright.

When these people hear you talk about the wonderful rule of George W Bush,

I’m going to stop using the word “mischaracterized” or “misrepresenting” and start using the word “lie”. Point out where I called his “rule” wonderful” or be known to be a liar.

. So if you’re going to try to argue that it was a “less bad choice,” good luck with that.

Compared to what? Obama? Bush didn’t seek to lose the war on islamist terrorism. So yeah, less bad choice.

So stop shooting us in the foot, V7_Sedan by forcing people to support bad political leadership. We could do a lot better if you just got out of our way.

Stop shooting us in the foot by being a spoiled child who thinks you are owed the perfect effort of everyone else before you can be persuaded to roll off the couch and do the best for the country by taking the heroic action of flipping a lever. Stop shooting us in the foot by defending people who have openly advocated voting for the worst to bring about the worst for the country so that they can play Red Dawn in some alternative universe that exists only in their little minds. Stop shooting us in the foot by having a tantrum because you haven’t gotten exactly what you want the moment you demanded it.

When you purge all the conservatives, how many votes will you have? This works both ways.

Yeah, had you understood a thing I had written you would have known that was never my objective.

Unfortunately, only one part of the grand Republican coalition is getting any love today, and it’s the corporatist types.

Bull. It’s the tea-party that gets the press and the grease. All well and good until they start demanding all of it.

No, he was not. You’re just regurgitating a line from the mainstream media.

Perhaps you didn’t grow up in a conservative household, I did. I assure you that this stance on abortion, immigration, Iran and communism were very much discussed.

I don’t know why anyone would blame Reagan for his amnesty when it was the first of its kind…

Again. Plenty of people were outraged at the time.

So stop with this liberal crap about Reagan being too liberal for today’s GOP.

I didn’t write that he was too liberal, thanks again for lying about what I wrote.
Liberal crap is justifying doing nothing in the face of electing existential threats to the country or defending people who have vowed to actually vote for the democrats. Only one of us has done that and that’s you.

Do your own work and prove your own arguments. You obviously have enough time on your hands, given the length of the responses you’re making.

Bull, that’s your playbook. It’s all up there, anyone can see that I haven’t.

I’ve already quoted directly from your playbook. Let’s roll the tape again. “Every election in human history has been between the les [sic] bad choice and the bad choice.”

Your words, not mine. I would never characterize the history of elections in this way.

What would I have to gain by that? Whatever, you are obviously going to see whatever is convenient for you to see.

If you make an argument that you can prove with actual quotes from the posters, I’ll listen. But not until then.

Life isn’t fair, most people learn that by age 5. now what? Fix the problem or side with the democrats?

Some problems aren’t fixable by conventional solutions or hard work. Most people also learn that by the age of five.

You are given candidates by the primaries, not some “establishment” not some “moneymen”. That’s part of the idiotic mythology that the moron herd here likes to wallow in. There isn’t someone out there in establishment headquarters picking and choosing who can run for you.

Money’s not everything, and the establishment doesn’t always win. But it takes money to run successfully and it comes down to probabilities. As the conservative Robert Taft bitterly complained back in 1952 after losing to Eisenhower, ”Every Republican candidate for President since 1936 has been nominated by the Chase National Bank.” The financial interests of the GOP don’t always get their way, but they get it a lot.

Every choice, ever, has always been the least bad choice. There has never been perfection. You still don’t get this.

I just don’t think you understand the English language.

Some elections are between a good and bad choice. Voters are not just given varying degrees of bad choices.

”There’s money, there’s letter-writing campaigns, there’s phone blitzes, there’s positive press, there’s negative press, there’s bringing business into districts, here is removing business from districts, there is face to face meetings and protests and getting out the vote campaigns, and a million and one other ways that the opposition knows quite well.”

And we do all these things. For example, I was among those who hated the nomination of Harriet Miers and argued bitterly that she was a dunce and Bush butt-clinger that needed to have her nomination withdrawn.

We won that battle and as a result we got a real conservative on the high court in Samuel Alito.

But not all battles should be fought that way. It depends on the battle. Sometimes a club is enough, and sometimes, like right now, you need the nuclear option.

LOL! OPEN YOUR EYES, LOOK AT THE MESS.

Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot in 2000 or 2004, bub. Gore and Kerry were. And since they didn’t win, you can’t argue to someone that you know for a fact what was the less bad choice.

Compared to what? Obama? Bush didn’t seek to lose the war on islamist terrorism. So yeah, less bad choice.

Bad example. If Obama and the Democrats still have an advantage over Republicans today, it’s in national security and foreign policy. Forget Benghazi and Gates and all that small ball stuff. The American public has no interest in starting up more wars or going back into Iraq.

That’s the legacy of Bush. He took what had been an advantage for Republicans for my entire life – that the GOP was better suited than the Democrats to defend U.S. national security – and destroyed it by carelessly frittering away our resources in nation building.

Bull. It’s the tea-party that gets the press and the grease. All well and good until they start demanding all of it.

Press and the grease? The Tea Party gets bad press from the liberal media, which RINOs are happy to see, and gets no “grease” – which I assume you define as money and support – from the establishment types in the party.

How many Tea Partiers are in the Senate? Just five. How many are in the House? Just 48 congressmen. There’s no domination going on. The Tea Party is merely trying to gain a foothold, and you’re complaining they get all the press and grease. Jesus.

Stop shooting us in the foot by being a spoiled child who thinks you are owed the perfect effort of everyone else before you can be persuaded to roll off the couch and do the best for the country by taking the heroic action of flipping a lever.

You’re the only person here using the word “perfect.” The only time I use it is when Im quoting you.

I didn’t write that [Reagan] was too liberal

You said he was considered a RINO back in his day. He wasn’t. End of story.

I have, you are basically calling me a liar at this point.
Here you go you unbelievably lazy joke. Here are just a few:

Im not sitting at home on election day … I’m going in to vote for Obama – and proudly so and here’s why […{On and on}]
5. I HATE – AND IT’S A VICERAL KIND OF HATRED – the Ayatollahs in the GOP. I have watched them cut the legs out from under Tea Party candidates for the last time – which is why I’ll send a message with my vote – not to sit at home – but to put their god*** faces right into the toilet with my vote for Obama!

In short – we’re all screwed – and the GOP has given us nothing for a solution – pull the lever for Ogabe and go home and start hoarding canned goods folks!HondaV65 on July 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Am I “enthusiastic” to vote? You betcha. I can’t wait to vote for Obama and hopefully we can put an end to the establishment once and for all with the defeat of Willard McDole!

4) I can vote for Obama. This gives the most value. I am young enough to fight in a civil war today and a decade or so more, thus if I vote Obama, and he can bring the collapse of the American dollar and our economy faster than the R, my vote for him gives me value.
[...]
According to my chart, voting Obama if the primary voters decide to pick a progressive is my next best option.astonerii

Yeah, we get it but they don’t seem to. My hunch is there is a growing faction that wants to just get the war started and will either stay home or vote dem even. I think it was HondaV65 that introduced me to this concept.DanMan

What was once inconceivable now seems the only logical solution to some of these folks. Who woulda thunk bluegill would have come around? HondaV45 was brutalized for actually voting for Oboobi in order to speed up the desolation. Now some of the same mockers start to see the tough love logic of it. Maybe you’ll come around and maybe you won’t.AH_C

Every person who used to vote GOP and decides to stay home sends the GOP a 1 vote message.Every one of *those* people who decide to vote Democrat instead, leverages that message to 2 votes.Just thinking out loud.Midas

You obviously have enough time on your hands, given the length of the responses you’re making.

Pot kettle, a theme here is that you want others to do your work for you. There’s nothing conservative about that. The quotes are in moderation, they will be up soon enough. Just what was easy picked after a fast goggle search that you could have done yourself.

Your words, not mine. I would never characterize the history of elections in this way.

So who was the perfect choice? If you can’t answer that you prove me right.

If you make an argument that you can prove with actual quotes from the posters, I’ll listen. But not until then.

My argument is independent of their words, and it’s common knowledge to long term viewers of this site that there are idiots who want deliberately inflict worst for the country in the hope that it will somehow get them their way. The difference between that and Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden is just one of degree.

Some problems aren’t fixable by conventional solutions or hard work

Really, how the hell would you know? I’ve had to do your research and spell everything out in triplicate here for you. Am I supposed to believe you have been active in party politics to assert a conservative agenda?

Most people also learn that by the age of five.

So you are past 5? Losing election doesn’t gain you influence. Got that?

Money’s not everything, and the establishment doesn’t always win.

What Establishment?

But it takes money to run successfully

If you can’t raise it you aren’t a viable candidate. Welcome to the real world.

Every choice, ever, has always been the least bad choice. There has never been perfection. You still don’t get this.

I just don’t think you understand the English language.

Wow.
Ok, so who was the perfect candidate? Answer that.

I was among those who hated the nomination of Harriet Miers and argued bitterly that she was a dunce and Bush butt-clinger that needed to have her nomination withdrawn

Gee, I thought all was lost and the “establishment” never let you play their raindeer games… So effort does work, The heck you say.

We won that battle and as a result we got a real conservative on the high court in Samuel Alito.

How would you have done had you tried to oppose Softball girl or the other one? (I’m not going to look up the spelling of their names) Not too well, hub, because the people who were elected, partially through you not voting the first time around, don’t care what you think about their nominations.

Bad example.

I don’t think so.

If Obama and the Democrats still have an advantage over Republicans today, it’s in national security and foreign policy.

An advantage with whom? Are you saying “popular” is the same as “correct”? P1ssing away the victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is a crime against the republic that is almost unparalleled.

that the GOP was better suited than the Democrats to defend U.S. national security –

They still are, or are you satisfied with the mess Obama has made of our foreign policy?

Press and the grease? The Tea Party gets bad press from the liberal media, which RINOs are happy to see, and gets no “grease” – which I assume you define as money and support – from the establishment types in the party

.
Press= attention, eyeballs. God, you are tedious.

You’re the only person here using the word “perfect.” The only time I use it is when Im quoting you.

Is that really all you took away from that?

You said he was considered a RINO back in his day. He wasn’t. End of story.

You are wrong, I was alive, I remember what I saw and heard. You don’t know what you are talking about, end of story.

When these people hear you talk about the wonderful rule of George W Bush,

I’m going to stop using the word “mischaracterized” or “misrepresenting” and start using the word “lie”. Point out where I called his “rule” wonderful” or be known to be a liar.

“Pot kettle, a theme here is that you want others to do your work for you.”

Quite the opposite. When you contested my portrayal of your words, I quoted you directly. When I contest your portrayal of other posters’ words, you hem and haw. I do my work; you don’t.

”The quotes are in moderation, they will be up soon enough”

Don’t lose the thread of the argument. We were talking about what other posters *here* were writing in this thread. Those quotes should not be “in moderation” or need to test your Google skills. Those posters include Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, and floatingrock. You claimed they – or least some of them – proudly used their conservative principles to announce their support for Democrats and Obama.

Either you can prove this argument by quoting their actual words – as I did yours – or you’re lying.

”So who was the perfect choice? If you can’t answer that you prove me right.”

There you go using that word “perfect” again. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

”My argument is independent of their words…”

This is the funniest line you’ve written yet. I would call you a comic genius for having wrote it, but I’m pretty sure you did so unintentionally.

The only thing which would make this line “perfect” (There ! My first original use of the word “perfect” in our discussion !) is if you had said that “My argument is independent of their words, logic, and history.” That would have been the trifecta.

”and it’s common knowledge to long term viewers of this site that there are idiots who want deliberately inflict worst for the country in the hope that it will somehow get them their way. The difference between that and Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden is just one of degree.”

So now you’re accusing Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, and floating rock of being domestic terrorists. Why go to the liberal media for gross caricatures of conservatives when we can come here to Hot Air and see them being made by RINO commentators!

”Really, how the hell would you know [that some problems aren’t fixable by conventional solutions or hard work]?

Because I’m more than five years old.

I’ve had to do your research…

You can’t even do your own research. Don’t take credit for mine.

Am I supposed to believe you have been active in party politics to assert a conservative agenda?

I really don’t care whether you believe me or not. I simply gave one illustration of where I actively opposed a sitting Republican president’s decision to effect conservative goals. But whether you believe my small role in it or not, it shouldn’t be too hard believing that conservatives derailed Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the high court, since that is a matter of public record.

”Losing election doesn’t gain you influence. Got that?”

Tell that to the Goldwater conservatives who lost in 1964 and then gradually took over the GOP. Tell it to the McGovernites who took over the Democratic Party in 1972, only to lose most of the next several presidential elections before they finally took over power in 2008.

I’m more concerned about the long haul than I am with what happens in the next presidential election. You, on the other hand, have the attention span of a beetle. You’d gladly win the next battle even if someone showed you it would lose the war.

”An advantage with whom?”

The American public.

”Are you saying “popular” is the same as “correct”?”

No, but it certainly helps at election time, and isn’t that what you’ve been telling us is the only important thing in politics? To win elections?

But as we conservatives have been pointing out, you’ve been strongly supporting losers – Republicans who win elections, but then salt the earth with their policies, making it harder for other Republicans to gain an edge with the public in the future.

Why don’t you try supporting winners for a change? You know, men who will actually do some good when they enter office.

”They still are, or are you satisfied with the mess Obama has made of our foreign policy?”

We’re not talking about my views, but the public’s. A mess where you’re not getting more of your people killed and squandering more resources always plays better with the public than a mess where your people are getting killed and resources are being wasted. Obama’s only major problem has been not to get out of Afghanistan more quickly because of some silly campaign rhetoric.

”Press= attention, eyeballs. God, you are tedious.”

And you’re stupid. The Tea Party gets slandered in the press everyday, and you consider this a good thing for them?

”You are wrong, I was alive, I remember what I saw and heard [about Reagan].”

I was alive back then, too. And I actually have a brain that works, so I’m one up on you.

”I’m going to stop using the word “mischaracterized” or “misrepresenting” and start using the word “lie”. Point out where I called his “rule” wonderful” or be known to be a liar.”

I was simply getting in your spirit of making arguments that were independent of mere words.

V7_Sedan’s argument that he knows Ronald Reagan was considered a RINO because he (V7_Sedan) was alive back then cracks me up. What response is there to a poster who believes his mere temporal existence in history allows him to trump any evidence to the contrary?

Ford entered the race with the endorsement of almost the entire party political establishment—Paul Laxalt of Nevada, a longtime friend of Reagan, was the only U.S. senator to back him against Ford. But Reagan was a hero to conservatives…

Although he did not formally declare his candidacy until November 1979, Reagan made it clear to his inner circle from the moment of the 1976 convention that he intended to again seek the presidency. He was the choice of rank-and-file Republican voters in public opinion polls although many establishment GOP politicians thought he was too conservative and perhaps too old to win the White House….

Moreover, conservatives were the dominant force within the Republican Party, and Reagan was their champion. Moderate Republicans worried that Reagan would be too confrontational toward the Soviet Union….

Carter and Reagan were not alone in the 1980 presidential campaign. Representative John Anderson, a moderate Republican from Illinois who had run in his party’s primaries, saw Reagan as too conservative and launched an independent campaign for the presidency.

Credibility is not something retrieved in an endless press-conference. The best you can say is that he wasn’t laughed at.

This whole panel – Rove, Williams, Woodward and George Will were old-warriors reminiscing over old campaigns. If they were really paying attention they would have said what is obvious to us:

Christie befriended the enemy during the election and now that he is in trouble, his friends want to crucify him. He should have known that, which is why we should be thankful that he will not be the nominee.

‘Street Cred’? I am not an official member of the TEA Party but support the major principles for which they stand, yet/and I am still insulted by this comment.

After the lawlessness, criminal activity, lies, denial, and continuous on-going scandals and cover-ups of this current administration, I ‘appreciate’ the ‘refreshing’ change of pace presented by Christie who got to the bottom of a ‘scandal’ within his administration, fired the individual (Accountability in govt? I had almost forgotten what that was or what it looked like) and held an hour and forty seven minute press conference to answer every question the media had. Obama has not given 147 SECONDS to the media about any 1 of his own scandals!

Quite the opposite. When you contested my portrayal of your words, I quoted you directly.

You have truncated what I have written to the pint that the meaning was lost, you have posted what I ghave written and assigned a completely new meaning to it (straw man) and you have posted it and acknowledged that you don’t understand it, even though it;s in basic English. I can provide an example of all of that to add to the tedium if you wish.

When I contest your portrayal of other posters’ words, you hem and haw. I do my work; you don’t.

It’s up there. There is a active movement to actually vote for the worst for this country to bring about the collapse. There is no such thing as a conservative Cloward–Piven strategy. The very thought is a contradiction in terms.

Don’t lose the thread of the argument. We were talking about what other posters *here* were writing in this thread. Those quotes should not be “in moderation” or need to test your Google skills. Those posters include Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, and floatingrock

Some of them are up, go look through floating rocks posts yourself, some are on this thread. Regardless, this is a long term meme that perhaps you were unfamiliar with before you waded in and proceeded to be a blowhard.

Either you can prove this argument by quoting their actual words – as I did yours – or you’re lying.

There you go using that word “perfect” again. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Gee, I’ll even look it up of you since you can’t understand basic English:perfect
1per·fect adjective \ˈpər-fikt\
: having no mistakes or flaws
: completely correct or accurate
: having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc.

It’s getting to the point that if you need anything else explained you are going to have to ask your mommy. By the way, let the record show that you could not give me the name of the “perfect candidate”…

This is the funniest line you’ve written yet. I would call you a comic genius for having wrote it, but I’m pretty sure you did so unintentionally.

My central argument here, that you haven’t gotten or are being deliberately obtuse is that you vote for the most conservative, electible candidate and then work to hold them accountable. It’s smarter than staying home or electing democrats… You have done everything you could not to address that because it’s unbreakable. It’s also more work than whining here, which is why you won’t be bothered.

So now you’re accusing Midas, AH_C, HondaV65, astonerii, and floating rock of being domestic terrorists. Why go to the liberal media for gross caricatures of conservatives when we can come here to Hot Air and see them being made by RINO commentators!

Traitor will do. Want me to define that as well:
trai·tor noun \ˈtrā-tər\
: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy

I’m accusing them of being traitors to the country and traitors to conservatism. I think the Honda pusher is a Moby and the rest of you are just frustrated and insecure and poking for a bandwagon to hop on. so you can thump your chest about hope pure you are as you laughably cut your own throats and make yourselves irrelevant, I think you have been rolled, duped and used. I think you have helped hand the socialists everything they want. You got f-ed and are insisting that the rest of us bend over and be as stupid as you were. That’s it with the bark on. You got duped and you still haven’t figured it out.

Because I’m more than five years old.

Your vocabulary and reasoning skills don’t point to that.

it shouldn’t be too hard believing that conservatives derailed Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the high court, since that is a matter of public record.

So actual work does work to persuade the political process: You prove my point.

”Losing election doesn’t gain you influence. Got that?”

Tell that to the Goldwater conservatives who lost in 1964 and then gradually took over the GOP. Tell it to the McGovernites who took over the Democratic Party in 1972, .

LOL, The Mcgovernites! 1974-2008… So you are going to shoot yourself in the foot for an equivalent amount of time, huh.. You are only making yourself irrelevant and maybe that’s for the best.
1) This isn’t 1964. 2) Look at the mess you have enabled. 3) All that you have done is ensure that we are broke and guarantee the end of our status as a superpower.
Bottom line, you dispute the idea that losing elections does’t gain you influence, which is profoundly stupid.

But as we conservatives have been pointing out, you’ve been strongly supporting losers –

Ever consider that there are people out there who don’t agree with you? Libertarians, Social cons, Fiscal Cons… Are all the agendas here identical? The whole idea is that you need too work with them (I know, WORK, better to vote for Obama, right?) instead of tossing your toys out of the crib when you don’t get whatever you want.

Blah blah, duck another question, mental mastribation….

Don’t have time for this.

I was alive back then, too. And I actually have a brain that works, so I’m one up on you.

With such obvious insecurity no wonder you can be channeled into doing something that’s the opposite of what your best interests are. That’s what the appeal is to, by the way. You want to thump your chest about how pure you are and they want the win no matter what. They are more than content to let you rant about how brilliant you are here as you cut your own throat by staying home. Well done, you helped give the democrats everything they wanted.

”I’m going to stop using the word “mischaracterized” or “misrepresenting” and start using the word “lie”. Point out where I called his “rule” wonderful” or be known to be a liar.”

I was simply getting in your spirit of making arguments that were independent of mere words.

V7_Sedan’s argument that he knows Ronald Reagan was considered a RINO because he (V7_Sedan) was alive back then cracks me up. What response is there to a poster who believes his mere temporal existence in history allows him to trump any evidence to the contrary?

He even dyed his hair! I can remember my father being very suspicious of a “man” who would do such a thing. (Dad was suspicious of any man with hair over the age of 30 though.)

So no. His record as governor wasn’t uber conservative, neither was his background, and he did sign the biggest Amnesty bill in the USA. Had there been someone with a shoot yourself in the foot bandwagon for the insecure to hop on back then we might have had 8 years of Carter, the second worst president of memory…

You have truncated what I have written to the pint [sic] that the meaning was lost…

Nothing was truncated. You presented the history of elections as always being about two bad choices. One was bad, one was less bad.

I can provide an example of all of that to add to the tedium if you wish.

I wish it. You’re not entertaining if you’re not being tedious.

By the way, here’s your paragraph where you claim to be spelling out your arguments in “basic English.”

You have truncated what I have written to the pint [sic] that the meaning was lost, you have posted what I ghave [sic] written and assigned a completely new meaning to it (straw man) and you have posted it and acknowledged that you don’t understand it, even though it;s [sic] in basic English.

Three sentences. Three simple spelling mistakes. Maybe you’re not the guy to be confidently declaiming about what’s “basic English.”

Please don’t blame it on the auto-correct again.

It’s up there.

No, it’s not.

There is a active movement to actually vote for the worst for this country to bring about the collapse. There is no such thing as a conservative Cloward–Piven strategy. The very thought is a contradiction in terms.

So prove these posters are involved in this strategy. Or shut your piehole.

Some of them are up, go look through floating rocks posts yourself, some are on this thread.

Do your own work to prove your own arguments.

I just took the most redially [sic] available, want more?

You provided none.

It’s getting to the point that if you need anything else explained you are going to have to ask your mommy. By the way, let the record show that you could not give me the name of the “perfect candidate”…

You put “perfect candidate” in quotes as if you’re quoting me, but as I’ve told at least three times now, I never said anything about a “perfect” candidate or politician or election. Why would I? I’m not looking for one. They don’t exist.

I am thrilled to see that you know how to use a dictionary, although given the numerous misspellings in your post, the effort to look up “perfect” must have worn you out.

My central argument here, that you haven’t gotten or are being deliberately obtuse is that you vote for the most conservative, electible [sic] candidate and then work to hold them accountable.

Your central argument was immediately apprehended by every poster in this thread. The reason people here still disagree with you is because your central argument is wrong.

If the election is between Hitler and Stalin, I’m not voting for Hitler and then working after the election to moderate him. You would be, though.

Similarly, if the election is between two candidates who are both effectively Democrats, I’m not participating. I’d rather sit it out and punish the party that should be better representing my views with more conservative candidates.

It’s smarter than staying home or electing democrats…

You are electing Democrats. They just call themselves Republicans. As you might say, it’s the “less bad choice.”

I’m accusing them of being traitors to the country and traitors to conservatism.

They’re not the ones voting for liberals, buckwheat. You are.

They’re not the ones voting for candidates who they know are bad for the country and their party. You are.

They’re not implicated in the bad decision-making. You are.

I think the Honda pusher is a Moby and the rest of you are just frustrated and insecure and poking for a bandwagon to hop on. so you can thump your chest about hope pure you are as you laughably cut your own throats and make yourselves irrelevant, I think you have been rolled, duped and used. I think you have helped hand the socialists everything they want. You got f-ed and are insisting that the rest of us bend over and be as stupid as you were. That’s it with the bark on. You got duped and you still haven’t figured it out.

We’re patriots. We’re expect better for our country and more quality candidates from our party.

You, on the other hand, are a butt-licker. You stoop to defend the indefensible by becoming a sycophant for whoever is pushed out to represent your party.

Your vocabulary and reasoning skills don’t point to that.

Why don’t you go up and count all the spelling mistakes in your posts. If you’ve got all day.

So actual work does work to persuade the political process: You prove my point.

Your point is too generic to be useful. Sometimes intra-party activism works, and sometimes it doesn’t.

For example, I supported the Iraq war. But when the war got bogged down in nation-building, I argued with fellow Republicans that we needed to cut loose so that we could keep our options open for attacking Iran and North Korea.

I was mostly ignored, although subsequent events have shown we would have been far better off getting out of Iraq earlier than we did. Unfortunately, while we were wasting our time in Iraq, North Korea got their nukes and Iran is still working on getting them.

So sometimes intra-party activism works, and sometimes it doesn’t. There’s no rule that says it will always work, and therefore you can’t argue that a voter is always better off supporting the less bad choice in an election and working to improve it.

Ever consider that there are people out there who don’t agree with you? Libertarians, Social cons, Fiscal Cons… Are all the agendas here identical?

This is funny coming from the guy who argues that we must always support the “less bad choice.”

Look, I recognize you have a Constitutional right to be a dumbass and support whoever you want for whatever reasons you want. If that means you have to stick your head up the butt of whoever the Republican Party nominates while calling yourself a patriot and everyone else traitors, then so be it. Nobody disputes that you have that right.

But many here disagree with your “head in the politician’s butt” strategy. We don’t see an upside to being a member of the bunghole brigade.

LOL, The Mcgovernites! 1974-2008… So you are going to shoot yourself in the foot for an equivalent amount of time, huh..

It won’t take as long. We conservatives are smarter than liberals. But it will take more than one election cycle.

”You are only making yourself irrelevant and maybe that’s for the best.”

The Republicans need our votes. So we won’t be irrelevant. In fact, some people argue that Romney could have won the 2012 election if so many white right-leaning voters hadn’t stayed home.

1) This isn’t 1964. 2) Look at the mess you have enabled. 3) All that you have done is ensure that we are broke and guarantee the end of our status as a superpower.

The only mess I enabled was by voting twice for George W Bush because I thought he was the “less bad choice.” But you are right about one thing, as a result of my votes, I helped to ensure we’re broke and near the end of our superpower status.

I won’t make that mistake again, which is more than you can say.

You were caught lying about what I wrote.

If this is a lie, then the score is V7_Sedan ten lies to Pincher Martin’s one.

You have truncated what I have written to the pint [sic] that the meaning was lost…

Nothing was truncated. You presented the history of elections as always being about two bad choices. One was bad, one was less bad.

I can provide an example of all of that to add to the tedium if you wish.

I wish it. You’re not entertaining if you’re not being tedious.

By the way, here’s your paragraph where you claim to be spelling out your arguments in “basic English.”

You have truncated what I have written to the pint [sic] that the meaning was lost, you have posted what I ghave [sic] written and assigned a completely new meaning to it (straw man) and you have posted it and acknowledged that you don’t understand it, even though it;s [sic] in basic English.

Three sentences. Three simple spelling mistakes. Maybe you’re not the guy to be confidently declaiming about what’s “basic English.”

Please don’t blame it on the auto-correct again.

It’s up there.

No, it’s not.

There is a active movement to actually vote for the worst for this country to bring about the collapse. There is no such thing as a conservative Cloward–Piven strategy. The very thought is a contradiction in terms.

So prove these posters are involved in this strategy. Or shut your piehole.

Some of them are up, go look through floating rocks posts yourself, some are on this thread.

Do your own work to prove your own arguments.

I just took the most redially [sic] available, want more?

You provided none.

It’s getting to the point that if you need anything else explained you are going to have to ask your mommy. By the way, let the record show that you could not give me the name of the “perfect candidate”…

You put “perfect candidate” in quotes as if you’re quoting me, but as I’ve told at least three times now, I never said anything about a “perfect” candidate or politician or election. Why would I? I’m not looking for one. They don’t exist.

I am thrilled to see that you know how to use a dictionary, although given the numerous misspellings in your post, the effort to look up “perfect” must have worn you out.

My central argument here, that you haven’t gotten or are being deliberately obtuse is that you vote for the most conservative, electible [sic] candidate and then work to hold them accountable.

Your central argument was immediately apprehended by every poster in this thread. The reason people here still disagree with you is because your central argument is wrong.

If the election is between Hitler and Stalin, I’m not voting for Hitler and then working after the election to moderate him. You would be, though.

Similarly, if the election is between two candidates who are both effectively Democrats, I’m not participating. I’d rather sit it out and punish the party that should be better representing my views with more conservative candidates.

It’s smarter than staying home or electing democrats…

You are electing Democrats. They just call themselves Republicans. As you might say, it’s the “less bad choice.”

I’m accusing them of being traitors to the country and traitors to conservatism.

They’re not the ones voting for liberals. You are.

They’re not the ones voting for candidates who they know are bad for the country and their party. You are.

They’re not implicated in the bad decision-making. You are.

I think the Honda pusher is a Moby and the rest of you are just frustrated and insecure and poking for a bandwagon to hop on. so you can thump your chest about hope pure you are as you laughably cut your own throats and make yourselves irrelevant, I think you have been rolled, duped and used. I think you have helped hand the socialists everything they want. You got f-ed and are insisting that the rest of us bend over and be as stupid as you were. That’s it with the bark on. You got duped and you still haven’t figured it out.

We’re patriots. We’re expect better for our country and more quality candidates from our party.

You, on the other hand, are a sycophant. You stoop to defend the indefensible by supporting whoever is pushed out to represent your party.

Your vocabulary and reasoning skills don’t point to that.

Why don’t you go up and count all the spelling mistakes in your posts. If you’ve got all day.

So actual work does work to persuade the political process: You prove my point.

Your point is too generic to be useful. Sometimes intra-party activism works, and sometimes it doesn’t.

For example, I supported the Iraq war. But when the war got bogged down in nation-building, I argued with fellow Republicans that we needed to cut loose so that we could keep our options open for attacking Iran and North Korea.

I was mostly ignored, although subsequent events have shown we would have been far better off getting out of Iraq earlier than we did. Unfortunately, while we were wasting our time in Iraq, North Korea got their nukes and Iran is still working on getting them.

So sometimes intra-party activism works, and sometimes it doesn’t. There’s no rule that says it will always work, and therefore you can’t argue that a voter is always better off supporting the less bad choice in an election and working to improve it.

Ever consider that there are people out there who don’t agree with you? Libertarians, Social cons, Fiscal Cons… Are all the agendas here identical?

This is funny coming from the guy who argues that we must always support the “less bad choice.”

Look, I recognize you have a Constitutional right to be a pinhead and support whoever you want for whatever reasons you want. If that means you have to be a supporter of whoever the Republican Party nominates while calling yourself a patriot and everyone else in the party who disagrees with you traitors, then so be it. Nobody disputes you have that right.

But many here disagree with your humble servant strategy. We don’t see an upside to being a member of the sycophant brigade.

LOL, The Mcgovernites! 1974-2008… So you are going to shoot yourself in the foot for an equivalent amount of time, huh..

It won’t take as long. We conservatives are smarter than liberals. But it will take more than one election cycle.

”You are only making yourself irrelevant and maybe that’s for the best.”

The Republicans need our votes. So we won’t be irrelevant. In fact, some people argue that Romney could have won the 2012 election if so many white right-leaning voters hadn’t stayed home.

1) This isn’t 1964. 2) Look at the mess you have enabled. 3) All that you have done is ensure that we are broke and guarantee the end of our status as a superpower.

The only mess I enabled was by voting twice for George W Bush because I thought he was the “less bad choice.” But you are right about one thing, as a result of my votes, I helped to ensure we’re broke and near the end of our superpower status.

I won’t make that mistake again, which is more than you can say.

You were caught lying about what I wrote.

If this is a lie, then the score is V7_Sedan ten lies to Pincher Martin’s one.

So no. His record as governor wasn’t uber conservative, neither was his background, and he did sign the biggest Amnesty bill in the USA. Had there been someone with a shoot yourself in the foot bandwagon for the insecure to hop on back then we might have had 8 years of Carter, the second worst president of memory…

You need to learn to read your own links before you post them in support of whatever you’re arguing.

The original discussion was not about whether Reagan occasionally did or say liberal or nonconservative things, but whether he was considered a RINO back in his day. And the answer is that he wasn’t. He was considered conservative by both his opponents and his supporters.

Linking to some NR article written nearly twenty years after Reagan left the presidency doesn’t help you answer that question. The authors of that article are analyzing Reagan’s decision on an abortion law in the state of California forty years after he passed it.

I’m accusing them of being traitors to the country and traitors to conservatism.

They’re not the ones voting for liberals. You are.

Again, they are actually advocating voting for the democrats, as has been shown to you. Or at the very last, rationalizing not voting which is the same as surrender.

I think the Honda pusher is a Moby and the rest of you are just frustrated and insecure and poking for a bandwagon to hop on. so you can thump your chest about hope pure you are as you laughably cut your own throats and make yourselves irrelevant, I think you have been rolled, duped and used. I think you have helped hand the socialists everything they want. You got f-ed and are insisting that the rest of us bend over and be as stupid as you were. That’s it with the bark on. You got duped and you still haven’t figured it out.

We’re patriots. We’re expect better for our country and more quality candidates from our party.

There is NOTHING patriotic about voting for something that you KNOW will be a disaster for the country. Not one damn thing. I guess patriotism is another word and concept that you don’t get.
If you expect better lead by example instead of being such sniveling crybabies who want the whole country to burn because you didn’t get your own way.

You stoop to defend the indefensible by supporting whoever is pushed out to represent your party.

No, you bandwagon hopping lemming, I support the best I can get and then work to keep them accountable. Got it yet?

Why don’t you go up and count all the spelling mistakes in your posts.

Because I’m not a douche bag.

For example, I supported the Iraq war. But when the war got bogged down in nation-building, I argued with fellow Republicans that we needed to cut loose so that we could keep our options open for attacking Iran and North Korea.

LOL, irrational, arbitrary, uninformed, crazy. Send the men out on a limb to cut it off behind them so you could send them out on another limb. Perhaps it’s best that you don’t get a say in the political process. Real people have to fight those wars, right? Mr. Armchair general? Mr world leader pretend. It’s not a game of Risk.

I was mostly ignored,

I now see the wisdom in that.

It won’t take as long. We conservatives are smarter than liberals.

You are an utter moron and you are not a conservative.

The Republicans need our votes. So we won’t be irrelevant.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you? You can be left right the hell out in the cold. That’s what I am most concerned about. That conservatives will be because people like you, idiots, will show themselves to be completely impossible to deal with. I’ve written you off, why wouldn’t the party?

The only mess I enabled was by voting twice for George W Bush because I thought he was the “less bad choice.”

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

I won’t make that mistake again, which is more than you can say.

I’m a patriot, you have put your insecurities and your need to belong, coupled with a streak of ego-mania ahead of the country and allowed yourself to be used by the opposition, you are being made a fool out of.

You need to learn to read your own links before you post them in support of whatever you’re arguing.

They do. You need to learn how to understand the English language.

The original discussion was not about whether Reagan occasionally did or say liberal or nonconservative things, but whether he was considered a RINO back in his day.

This is what the original discussion was, don’t try to reframe it now that you have been shown to be wrong.

I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO. (He signed the most liberal abortion bill in the USA as governor of California. He was soft on immigration and did brig us the biggest illegal amnesty in the countries history and I remember my father even complaining he was am effeminate actor (dyed his hair) who was soft on communism. I wonder how many here would have stayed home for Reagan after a few of Allahpundents servings of raw meat?

OK, that was it. I linked to some of the many decidedly non conservative things Regan did when he was in office, they are just historical record. Pretending he didn’t won’t fly here.

Linking to some NR article written nearly twenty years after Reagan left the presidency doesn’t help you answer that question.

There were more articles than that, however, those facts existed back then, right? Someone who is as easily mentally screwed with as you and the rest of the “stab the USA in the back in order to save it or something” crowd could have been persuaded to stay home or even vote for Carter had they been around to screw with your fragile minds.

They do [support V7_Sedan's arguments]. You need to learn how to understand the English language.

No they don’t support you. An argument that Reagan did something in his political life that conservatives either disagreed with or that didn’t follow current conservative orthodoxy is not the same thing as saying that some conservative voters in the seventies and eighties did not want to vote for Reagan because they thought he was a RINO.

This is what the original discussion was … [V7_Sedan quotes himself in the middle of the discussion]

No, that wasn’t it. You’ve quoted yourself in the wrong place. That selection of yours was somewhere in the middle of our discussion. It wasn’t the original discussion at all. You need to go back further than that.

Again, they are actually advocating voting for the democrats, as has been shown to you.

It hasn’t been shown because you can’t show it. All you can do is link to Google.

Or at the very last [sic], rationalizing not voting which is the same as surrender.

Declining to vote for a bad choice is not surrender. Voting for the “less bad choice,” when you know it’s still a bad choice, is surrender.

There is NOTHING patriotic about voting for something that you KNOW will be a disaster for the country.

Yeah, we all agree with that. But that means when you vote for the “less bad choice,” even though you know it’s bad for your country, you are contributing to the disaster, not helping to solve it.

Not one damn thing. I guess patriotism is another word and concept that you don’t get. If you expect better lead by example instead of being such sniveling crybabies who want the whole country to burn because you didn’t get your own way.

We are leading by example, and we’re telling you to learn from it. The country is going down the crapper a lot faster with you and other GOP voters rationalizing your shitty votes rather than fighting against the system which is forcing those Hobson’s choices on all of us.

You’re no patriot. You’re a coward. Learn the difference.

I support the best I can get and then work to keep them accountable. Got it yet?

That’s a lie. You don’t work to keep them accountable. What have you done to prevent a man who is for the federal government fighting global warming, pushes amnesty, and thinks Obama is the bomb, from leading the GOP?

Absolutely nothing. In fact, you’ve done worse than that. You’re making arguments which will ensure he is the GOP stalwart come 2016.

You’re a buttlicker, not a patriot.

LOL, irrational, arbitrary, uninformed, crazy. Send the men out on a limb to cut it off behind them so you could send them out on another limb. Perhaps it’s best that you don’t get a say in the political process. Real people have to fight those wars, right? Mr. Armchair general? Mr world leader pretend. It’s not a game of Risk.

You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s obvious you’ve never served.

I have served in war, and I don’t want a bunch of uniformed bureaucrats in Washington DC extending tours for the sake of what looks good on TV or for some idealistic goal that was never worth fighting for because it was always out of our control.

Any potential threat in Iraq was removed by the end of the first year after our invasion began. Saddam was gone and the threat of WMD was found to be nonexistent. Yet we stayed – not for national security, but for a bunch of bullshit Wilsonian ideals that were completely divorced from reality. And we suffered for it.

We had other national security threats to deal with, but because of the Bush Bunghole Brigade we were forced to endure several more years of an impotent occupation.

Don’t use the men in uniform to defend your dumbass POV when many of those men and women could give a shit what you think.

You are an utter moron and you are not a conservative.

That insult is much more believable coming from me to you than you to me. At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you?

Doesn’t work that way. The GOP has tried to move to the center and what have they got for their effort? Two losses in a row, and before that two close elections against two marginal Democratic opponents.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time. You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles, and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives – even when the candidates are moderate, the volunteers are largely conservative.

What are going to do? Hire a bunch of Mexicans to take our place? Good luck with that. The Mexicans will just take your money and then go vote Democratic after they clock out.

I’ve written you off, why wouldn’t the party?

Write us off. I dare you. I double dare you. See how far it gets you, dickhead.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know. You voted for the “less bad choice,” and you’re still proud of it. You voted for the guy who accelerated government spending to the point he made Bill Clinton look conservative. You voted for the guy who made the U.S. public distrust the GOP as the party best suited to handle national security. You voted for the guy who federalized education. You voted for the guy who supported the bailouts and whose economic leadership lead to the worse economy since the Great Depression. Your voted for the guy who pushed for amnesty. You voted for the guy who allowed North Korea to go nuclear because he was too busy trying to save face in Iraq. You voted for the president who wasn’t even allowed to show up at his own party convention in 2008.

I did those things, too, but at least I learned from my mistakes. But you’re too smart to learn from yours because you believe in the “less bad choice.”

I’m a patriot

No, you’re a coward. Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country. No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing, can be called a patriot.

Again, they are actually advocating voting for the democrats, as has been shown to you.

It hasn’t been shown because you can’t show it. All you can do is link to Google.

Or at the very last [sic], rationalizing not voting which is the same as surrender.

Declining to vote for a bad choice is not surrender. Voting for the “less bad choice,” when you know it’s still a bad choice, is surrender.

There is NOTHING patriotic about voting for something that you KNOW will be a disaster for the country.

Yeah, we all agree with that. But that means when you vote for the “less bad choice,” even though you know it’s bad for your country, you are contributing to the disaster, not helping to solve it.

Not one damn thing. I guess patriotism is another word and concept that you don’t get. If you expect better lead by example instead of being such sniveling crybabies who want the whole country to burn because you didn’t get your own way.

We are leading by example, and we’re telling you to learn from it. The country is going down the crapper a lot faster with you and other GOP voters rationalizing your shitty votes rather than fighting against the system which is forcing those Hobson’s choices on all of us.

I support the best I can get and then work to keep them accountable. Got it yet?

That’s a lie. You don’t work to keep them accountable. What have you done to prevent a man who is for the federal government fighting global warming, pushes amnesty, and thinks Obama is the bomb, from leading the GOP?

Absolutely nothing. In fact, you’ve done worse than that. You’re making arguments which will ensure he is the GOP stalwart come 2016.

You’re a buttlicker, not a patriot.

LOL, irrational, arbitrary, uninformed, crazy. Send the men out on a limb to cut it off behind them so you could send them out on another limb. Perhaps it’s best that you don’t get a say in the political process. Real people have to fight those wars, right? Mr. Armchair general? Mr world leader pretend. It’s not a game of Risk.

You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s obvious you’ve never served.

I have served in war, and I don’t want a bunch of uniformed bureaucrats in Washington DC extending tours for the sake of what looks good on TV or for some idealistic goal that was never worth fighting for because it was always out of our control.

Any potential threat in Iraq was removed by the end of the first year after our invasion began. Saddam was gone and the threat of WMD was found to be nonexistent. Yet we stayed – not for national security, but for a bunch of bullshit Wilsonian ideals that were completely divorced from reality. And we suffered for it.

We had other national security threats to deal with, but because of the Bush Bunghole Brigade we were forced to endure several more years of an impotent occupation.

Don’t use the men in uniform to defend your dumbass POV when many of those men and women could give a shit what you think.

That insult is much more believable coming from me to you than you to me. At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you?

Doesn’t work that way. The GOP has tried to move to the center and what have they got for their effort? Two losses in a row, and before that two close elections against two marginal Democratic opponents.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time. You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles, and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives – even when the candidates are moderate, the volunteers are largely conservative.

What are going to do? Hire a bunch of Mexicans to take our place? Good luck with that. The Mexicans will just take your money and then go vote Democratic after they clock out.

I’ve written you off, why wouldn’t the party?

Write us off. I dare you. I double dare you. See how far it gets you, dickhead.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know. You voted for the “less bad choice,” and you’re still proud of it. You voted for the guy who accelerated government spending to the point he made Bill Clinton look conservative. You voted for the guy who made the U.S. public distrust the GOP as the party best suited to handle national security. You voted for the guy who federalized education. You voted for the guy who supported the bailouts and whose economic leadership lead to the worse economy since the Great Depression. Your voted for the guy who pushed for amnesty. You voted for the guy who allowed North Korea to go nuclear because he was too busy trying to save face in Iraq. You voted for the president who wasn’t even allowed to show up at his own party convention in 2008.

I did those things, too, but at least I learned from my mistakes. But you’re too smart to learn from yours because you believe in the “less bad choice.”

I’m a patriot

No, you’re a coward. Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country. No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing, can be called a patriot.

That insult is much more believable coming from me to you than you to me. At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you?

Doesn’t work that way. The GOP has tried to move to the center and what have they got for their effort? Two losses in a row, and before that two close elections against two marginal Democratic opponents.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time. You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles, and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives – even when the candidates are moderate, the volunteers are largely conservative.

What are going to do? Hire a bunch of Mexicans to take our place? Good luck with that. The Mexicans will just take your money and then go vote Democratic after they clock out.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know. You voted for the “less bad choice,” and you’re still proud of it. You voted for the guy who accelerated government spending to the point he made Bill Clinton look conservative. You voted for the guy who made the U.S. public distrust the GOP as the party best suited to handle national security. You voted for the guy who federalized education. You voted for the guy who supported the bailouts and whose economic leadership lead to the worse economy since the Great Depression. Your voted for the guy who pushed for amnesty. You voted for the guy who allowed North Korea to go nuclear because he was too busy trying to save face in Iraq. You voted for the president who wasn’t even allowed to show up at his own party convention in 2008.

I did those things, too, but at least I learned from my mistakes. But you’re too smart to learn from yours because you believe in the “less bad choice.”

I’m a patriot

Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country. No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing, can be called a patriot.

No they don’t support you. An argument that Reagan did something in his political life that conservatives either disagreed with or that didn’t follow current conservative orthodoxy is not the same thing as saying that some conservative voters in the seventies and eighties did not want to vote for Reagan because they thought he was a RINO.

And this was the argument, idiot:

I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO. (He signed the most liberal abortion bill in the USA as governor of California. He was soft on immigration and did brig us the biggest illegal amnesty in the countries history and I remember my father even complaining he was am effeminate actor (dyed his hair) who was soft on communism. I wonder how many here would have stayed home for Reagan after a few of Allahpundents servings of raw meat?

Read it and try to respond with out mischaracterizing it. Or don’t. Your opinion is oficially worthless.

No, that wasn’t it. You’ve quoted yourself in the wrong place.

Nope, that’s the topic.

It hasn’t been shown because you can’t show it. All you can do is link to Google.

There is still a post in moderation, however I showed it here. You just are being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so. Your nose has been rubbed in it, your only defense is to pretend you can’t smell it.

Declining to vote for a bad choice is not surrender. Voting for the “less bad choice,” when you know it’s still a bad choice, is surrender

Still just half the equation, the other half was work though, so…

Yeah, we all agree with that. But that means when you vote for the “less bad choice,” even though you know it’s bad for your country, you are contributing to the disaster, not helping to solve it.

No, you are not; you are giving yourself a fighting chance to stop it. Not just caving in and whining here.

We are leading by example, and we’re telling you to learn from it.

Your example = lazy cowardice.
I don’t follow cowardly parasites. Your lesson plan is idiotic and will result in the worst for the country and yourselves, Thanks for finally aligning yourself with the rest of the “destroy America to save it” crowd. Though. You aren’t patriots, you are an enemy of the country.

You’re no patriot. You’re a coward. Learn the difference

.
I am fighting every step of the way for this country, you are enabling the socialists because you are too much of a lazy POS to get in the game. That makes you the coward.
Tell you something else, If it ever does go to crap I’ll be more interested in helping them ruby-ridge idiots like you straight to hell because you brought it on yourselves.

That’s a lie. You don’t work to keep them accountable. What have you done to prevent a man who is for the federal government fighting global warming, pushes amnesty, and thinks Obama is the bomb, from leading the GOP?

Who is this leader that you speak of? What has he DONE to further those aims? I can only fight actions, not thoughts. Grow up.

You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s obvious you’ve never served.

Wrong again. I don’t wear it on my sleeve or toss it out to shore up a failed argument though.

I have served in war,

You have shown yourself to be a liar here. Regardless, it wouldn’t make your ideas any less stupid.

Any potential threat in Iraq was removed by the end of the first year after our invasion began.

So you took out Iran and Saudi Arabia as well, God help you, you just aren’t that smart.

Don’t use the men in uniform to defend your dumbass POV when many of those men and women could give a shit what you think.

You don’t speak for anyone here but yourself, a warped little liar who couldn’t be called on to defend the country from the likes of pajama boy.

At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

Congratulations on typing it in word instead of on the site.
Your insecurity is pretty obvious. “superior man”. You need to proclaim that a heck of a lot, it’s the heart of why you need to look at others and call them RINOs, Its how you have been jerked around by the nose into doing what is in the exact opposite of your best interests, Not too superior. Stupid.

Doesn’t work that way.

Said the political strategist who has defended losing elections to gain influence in the political process… There are more independents than ever. It very well could.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time.

Neither do you. Nor do the lot you have associated yourself with. You have shown yourselves to be completely unreliable. While I was out trying to get people to the polls the democrats were running circles around the GOP effort. They outnumbered and outworked us while you patted yourself on the back for staying home.

You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles,

When you can’t be persuaded to get off your ass to vote against Barack Obama you aren’t a soldier or a fighter, you are a parasite.

and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives –

How would you know?

Write us off. I dare you. I double dare you. See how far it gets you.

You personally can go to hell. I don’t want the GOP to write conservatives off because I am a conservative. If you divorce conservatives from the Grand old Party both will be politically irrelevant. The GOP will have to move to the center to adapt which will free up the dems to go far left. Which is what will happen.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know.

Yup..

I’m a patriot

Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country.

Point that out or be shown to be a liar again.

No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing,

Haven’t done that either, liar.
OK, since you are just a little insecure liar who needs to thump his chest online and is willing to damage the country to do so, why go further? You have a vendetta against the GOP to the point you are willing to empower full on socialists to wreck the USA, So is there a point in continuing? You are an enemy to the country, gullible and unhinged, I actually hope you are on a watch-list.

That doesn’t mean that everything Reagan did was conservative or uncontroversial with conservatives, but he wasn’t called the equivalent of a RINO. So referring to something like the abortion law he signed as governor or the amnesty bill doesn’t prove your point.

Learn how to argue before you start to make an argument. The topic is, Was Reagan considered the equivalent of a RINO? The answer is, No he was not. Referring to controversial bills Reagan signed as governor or president doesn’t prove he was considered a RINO any more than you can prove I’m a vegetarian because you took a photo of me eating vegetables.

I never disputed any of your details about Reagan. So that wasn’t the issue. What I disputed was that any of those details gave Reagan’s critics cause to question his overall conservatism. Did the anti-abortion crowd lose faith in Reagan because of the bill he signed as governor? Clearly, they didn’t.

But all of the posts you link come from old threads, not this thread. I was referring to posts made in this thread, where I saw no one talking about supporting the Democrats. So I didn’t understand why you just didn’t link the posts in question.

But I won’t play games with you. I don’t agree at all with those posters who choose to identify as conservative and then vote for Democrats. I think enough of a message is sent if you just don’t vote for the “less bad choice.”

As for me, I will never vote for a Democrat as long as I live. I’d sooner vote for a Commie than a Democrat since the Commie at least has no chance of implementing his agenda. (And, no, I’m not voting for the Commie, either.)

Just because Republicans put up a bad choice doesn’t mean one should vote for the worse choice. That kind of thinking is too twisted for me, and I seriously wonder if those posters who say stuff like that are really conservative at all.

By declining to vote for the “less bad choice,” you at least keep your own hands clean. But your hands are dirty if you then vote for the Democrats.

You just are being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so. Your nose has been rubbed in it, your only defense is to pretend you can’t smell it.

No, I just didn’t realize there was “moderation” at this site. Nor did I see your post earlier. Unlike you, I don’t live here at Hot Air. I rarely post. I’ve probably posted more words in this thread than I have in the rest of the site combined. So when I was defending the other posters here, I was defending only what I read in this thread.

But you could have easily referred to the one or two of those posts to make your point without delay rather than dilly-dally around.

I don’t follow cowardly parasites. Your lesson plan is idiotic and will result in the worst for the country and yourselves.

We both voted for Bush. He was a disaster. The country then overwhelmingly voted for Obama. So how did our vote for Bush save the country from disaster? It clearly didn’t. Instead, we got two disasters in a row, and the GOP was implicated in bad leadership, making winning future elections a tougher sell than it should have been.

When you support the bad, you give those who support the worse a chance to win. No Bush disaster; No Obama presidency. You can’t deny it.

Tell you something else, If it ever does go to crap I’ll be more interested in helping them ruby-ridge idiots like you straight to hell because you brought it on yourselves.

Then you’re no better than those conservatives who voted for Obama. Like them, you’re prepared to ally yourself with Democrats to hurt conservatives just out of spite.

There’s no difference between you and them.

Who is this leader that you speak of? What has he DONE to further those aims?

We’re talking about Christie, you idiot. You’re in the thread about him. Remember?

So what are you doing to prevent him from using the GOP to enable his liberal agenda for America – you know, the “less bad choice” you say the rest of us have to support.

Wrong again. I don’t wear it on my sleeve or toss it out to shore up a failed argument though.

Where? When? What branch? What was your MOS?

You have shown yourself to be a liar here.

We’re keeping score, Mate, and the number of lies you’ve told so far … well, let’s just say I can’t keep up even when I try.

Congratulations on typing it in word instead of on the site.

You need Word to correctly type in “It’s,” “have,” and “point”? Because those are the kind of words you’ve been misspelling, bucko.

Your insecurity is pretty obvious. “superior man”. You need to proclaim that a heck of a lot, it’s the heart of why you need to look at others and call them RINOs, Its how you have been jerked around by the nose into doing what is in the exact opposite of your best interests, Not too superior. Stupid.

Why should I pretend you’re smart, when it’s obvious from your writing skills that you’re not?

And, hey, I’m being kind. I could’ve mentioned your atrocious logical reasoning. But the superior man doesn’t feel the need to bring up every little thing to win an argument.

Said the political strategist who has defended losing elections to gain influence in the political process… There are more independents than ever. It very well could.

No, they won’t. Independents don’t like to identify strongly with either party. That’s what makes them independents. They don’t answer phones or go door-to-door. They stay at home and complain about both parties. Even when you win them (as Obama did in 2008), you just win their vote; you don’t win their hard work and their strong identification with your cause.

Neither do you. Nor do the lot you have associated yourself with.

Yes, I do. And a lot more than an uneducated jackass like you will ever be able to send. Although now I’m sending my money to groups like NumbersUSA and other nonpartisan issue-oriented groups that I favor.

While I was out trying to get people to the polls the democrats were running circles around the GOP effort. They outnumbered and outworked us while you patted yourself on the back for staying home.

Then next time you’d better appreciate what conservatives can do and make sure they’re included in the process.

But, no, you’d rather team up with Obama and go Ruby Ridge on our ass. Like I said, not a patriot.

You personally can go to hell. I don’t want the GOP to write conservatives off because I am a conservative.

If you’re voting for Jeb or Christie, then you’re not a conservative. And don’t try to piggyback on our brand just because it’s much more popular than the GOP brand.

Point that out or be shown to be a liar again.

It’s already out there in cyberspace, bub, that you always support the “less bad choice.” Your words, not mine.

If the Republicans nominated a six-foot-high pile of shit, you’d say everyone needs to vote for him because the Democratic candidate is a seven-foot-high pile of shit. And then after the GOP elected a six-foot-high pile of shit and disaster followed, you’d happily tell everyone that we made the best possible choice.

Clearly, then, it’s not lie to say you espouse willingly contributed to a disaster for your country. That’s why you’re not a patriot.

Not so, meathead. And your quote, which you finally got right, shows that you argued that you remembered that Reagan was “called the equivalent of a RINO.” You’re wrong.

It’s crazy of you to claim that you can say that his less than conservative record was never a topic of discussion. And the point you stupidly missed is that his record was such that he could have been trashed as a RINO to the point where a gullible fool such as yourself would have stayed home or voted for Carter. I posted some of the things he did as governor, you blew it off. Done.

That doesn’t mean that everything Reagan did was conservative or uncontroversial with conservatives, but he wasn’t called the equivalent of a RINO.

Again, before the election my father thought he was a complete phony and a draft dodger… Since the word RINO hadn’t been coined (it probably came from a democrat paid for PR firm to split off the erratic from the GOP to help the democrats win elections) phrases like Hollywood draft dodger, soft on communism and abortionist were. It’s insane of you to say that no one thought or said otherwise

Learn how to argue before you start to make an argument

I didn’t start this and your argument is crazy. He had a relatively un-conservative record of raising taxes, spending, signed the most liberal abortion bill in the country, etc, You would have been loudly calling yourself a hero for voting for Carter to get a pat on the back here.

The topic is, Was Reagan considered the equivalent of a RINO?

No, what I wrote was, for the fifth time, “I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO”. He was, I heard it, it was with solid basis and you saying otherwise is crazy. I grew up in what was an anachronism even then: My parents were in their late 40′s when I was born, for my 13th birthday I was given a rifle. Dad fought in WW2 and met mom when she was working in the USO. The way we graduated from eating at the kiddy table at thanksgiving was to do a hitch in the Navy. Is it impossible to conceive that such people and their peer group would not see ’70′s Reagan as less than conservative? Especially compared to someone like Goldwater?

Did the anti-abortion crowd lose faith in Reagan because of the bill he signed as governor? Clearly, they didn’t

There were no mobys on Hot air to jerk them around by their insecurities, otherwise…

Finally. It’s about time.

That’s been up there since 10:43, ECT yesterday. About time? What’s wrong with you?

But all of the posts you link come from old threads, not this thread.

So what?

I was referring to posts made in this thread,

I wasn’t. Perhaps you should have not waddled into a conversation that didn’t involve you without the back-story.

I don’t agree at all with those posters who choose to identify as conservative and then vote for Democrats.

WELL THAT WAS THE MAIN PROBLEM. Awesome, you have harangued me for 2 days because you climbed on board a thread, sided with what you thought were the cool kids and now it turns out that you don’t agree with them about the main reason I have been pissed off with them. This “vote democrat to screw the Republicans (or the country)” thing has been a meme here, it has been since ’08 when there was an open registration and a bunch of people popped up first, saying that Hillary Clinton was the “true conservative” and then they would rather stay home or vote democrat then see McCain elected. Same thing in ’12. So thanks for all this. Really, thanks for pissing me right the hell off because you didn’t have the foggiest idea what had been going on.

It’s crazy of you to claim that you can say that [Reagan’s] less than conservative record was never a topic of discussion.

Of course his deviations from conservative orthodoxy were occasionally a topic of discussion. But that has nothing to do with whether they were frequent enough to create a meme that Reagan was considered the equivalent of a RINO. They weren’t. End of story.

Every conservative who has ever run for office has occasionally deviated from conservative orthodoxy. But that hasn’t turned every one of them into RINOs. Santorum, for example, voted for Bush’s NCLB and the Medicare Modernization Act, but no one calls Santorum a RINO. They complain about him for other reasons. (Paul did call him a “big government conservative.”)

And the point you stupidly missed is that his record was such that he could have been trashed as a RINO to the point where a gullible fool such as yourself would have stayed home or voted for Carter.

But Reagan wasn’t called a RINO, and no one stayed home on election day in 1980 because of his lack of conservatism. Everyone in both parties who attacked Reagan attacked him as too extreme. They thought he would start a war. They thought he would throw the poor and elderly out on the street. Etc.

A handful of Republicans (and more Democrats) even voted for the third party presidential candidate and former Republican John Anderson because they thought Reagan was too right wing.

Stop making up history.

Again, before the election my father thought he was a complete phony and a draft dodger…

And some fools thought Eisenhower was a genuine Communist. Look, your family’s record of mental illness and how it mixes with politics is of no interest to this discussion.

Since the word RINO hadn’t been coined (it probably came from a democrat paid for PR firm to split off the erratic from the GOP to help the democrats win elections) phrases like Hollywood draft dodger, soft on communism and abortionist were. It’s insane of you to say that no one thought or said otherwise

So did anyone other than your father call Reagan a “Rockefeller Republican” or “Gypsy Moth” back in the seventies? No, no one did. No one was that idiotic. A couple of hard right commentators might have questioned the strength of Reagan’s conservatism at the time (which is not the same thing as calling him a RINO), but they were crowded out by the number of people who questioned whether Reagan was too extreme to be president.

That’s been up there since 10:43, ECT yesterday. About time? What’s wrong with you?

I didn’t see it. But I don’t live here at this site. So the customs of how “moderation” are handled are new to me. I was basing my comments only on what I read here in this thread, and so some of your comments about the posters here seemed unjustified to me, especially since you were lumping me in with them.

I retract that part of my criticism of you. For some of the so-called conservative posters here, you are more than justified in saying that they are directly supporting the Democrats.

I wasn’t. Perhaps you should have not waddled into a conversation that didn’t involve you without the back-story.

Rick Santorum is the worst of all possible worlds, a religious conservative who believes in a nanny state to keep people in line. He is a big spender and has declared himself against libertarians. He’s a RINO. All true, See how easy that was?

But Reagan wasn’t called a RINO

The word didn’t exist. He was. what you are trying to say is that it didn’t catch on in the press. There was ample material there to trash him as such had the DNC caught on to the strategy that there are so many conservatives that can be screwed with.

Everyone in both parties who attacked Reagan attacked him as too extreme. They thought he would start a war. They thought he would throw the poor and elderly out on the street.

So you speak for “everyone”. I didn’t get the memo. You are wrong but the point was, his record was peppered with liberal policies and decisions, had someone been clever enough to split the party you would have heard it.

Rick Santorum is the worst of all possible worlds, a religious conservative who believes in a nanny state to keep people in line. He is a big spender and has declared himself against libertarians. He’s a RINO. All true, See how easy that was?

I told you, mental illness runs in your family.

The word [RINO} didn’t exist. He was [a RINO].

The term “Rockefeller Republican” existed. The term “Gypsy Moth” existed. The term “Me-too Republican” existed. And they meant all the same thing back then as RINO means today. Yet outside of your mentally-challenged family, Reagan was called none of those things.

So you speak for “everyone”. I didn’t get the memo. You are wrong but the point was, [Reagan's] record was peppered with liberal policies and decisions, had someone been clever enough to split the party you would have heard it.

Somebody did split the party, goofy. I already told you his name: John Anderson, a left-leaning Republican congressman who won more than 6 percent of the vote in that 1980 election.

Fortunately, very few Republicans heeded Anderson’s call. He probably took more votes from Carter than Reagan.

And Gerald Ford blamed Reagan for his close loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976, because Reagan ran so hard against the president in the 1976 primary and then didn’t help Ford out much in the general election. It’s a matter of record. You can look it up.

Another lie.

You addressed me first. My “hear hear” was not addressed to you. You then dragged me into this cat fight.

Said the proven liar-troll who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for the country. I can only imagine the genetic cesspool that produced someone who has made the ass out of themselves here as you have. Did your parents think lead pant chips were a vegetable?

Yet outside of your mentally-challenged family, Reagan was called none of those things.

By anyone, including people in the military industrial complex who would get together for dinner parties, Captains, Admirals, CEO’s and the like… Just because it wasn’t spoken about in your white-trash doublewide in California, the flake state, doesn’t mean that there were not people discussing it. It just means it wasn’t discussed by whatever prostitute was bouncing you on their knee at the time.

Somebody did split the party, goofy. I already told you his name: John Anderson, a left-leaning Republican…

Whom Carter blames for his loss in the election. Amazingly, you are still missing the point. Reagan’s record wasn’t conservative. Had someone wanted to screw with your mind to make you stay home there was plenty there to do so.

You addressed me first. My “hear hear” was not addressed to you.

You chimed into a conversation I was having with someone else.

You then dragged me into this cat fight.

You have be-clowned yourself here, you are now hereby excused from the “cat -flight”. Buh by.

Said the proven liar-troll who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for the country.

I’m standing up to you. While I admit it’s not a brave task, it’s certainly a necessary one.

I can only imagine the genetic cesspool that produced someone who has made the ass out of themselves here as you have.

I’ll have you know that I come from the finest Übermenschen stock.

Did your parents think lead pant chips were a vegetable?

No, but we did get rich convincing your parents that those lead wheat thins were one of the five essential food groups. How I was to know that my family legacy would later haunt me in the form of a deranged man-boy who now spends all his time as a full-fledged member of the Bush Bunghole Brigade on the internet.

By anyone, including people in the military industrial complex who would get together for dinner parties, Captains, Admirals, CEO’s and the like…

So quote them. If you have General Jack Ripper or Colonel Bat Guano calling Reagan a “Rockefeller Republican” in 1976, let’s see it.

Should be worth a laugh, Mandrake.

Just because it wasn’t spoken about in your white-trash doublewide in California, the flake state…

And the home of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, the RINOs here took over the GOP and now it’s hard to find a conservative on the ground. I won’t let them do the same thing happen nationally.

It just means it wasn’t discussed by whatever prostitute was bouncing you on their knee at the time.

I’m sure my parents would have never hired your mom as a nanny.

Whom Carter blames for his loss in the election.

Carter says a lot of a stupid things that only stupid Democrats and RINOs (like you) believe. Carter could have taken every single vote from Anderson and still lost that election. Anderson won six percent of the vote and Reagan won by ten.

That’s the problem with Democrats and RINOs. They’re still losers even when they’re in league with each other. NEVER vote for either one.

Amazingly, you are still missing the point. Reagan’s record wasn’t conservative.

Amazingly, you still must have some of that fifth essential food group laying around that my parents sold your parents. Please put those fake wheat thins down. They’re not really wheat thins, and they’re not an essential food group.

Had someone wanted to screw with your mind to make you stay home there was plenty there to do so.

I’m not the one who belongs to the Bunghole Brigade, the strength-in-numbers movement by guys who want to both screw with their mind and have others screw with it as well.

You chimed into a conversation I was having with someone else.

No, I applauded a sentiment I saw expressed in a post. That’s it. I didn’t realize at the time I was walking into your girls’ multi-year cat fight.

You have be-clowned yourself here…

A word of advice, wheat thin boy. “Beclowned” doesn’t need a hyphen. I know you think a hyphen makes you look smart and sophisticated and therefore must be the right spelling, but try to avoid going with your feelings on such matters and instead go with the actual English orthography found in most standard dictionaries.

I’m standing up to you. While I admit it’s not a brave task, it’s certainly a necessary one.

You have: 1) Sided with people who advocate voting for democrats to bring about the destruction of the GOP and/or the country. When you finally were made to understand that was what you were doing you did the whole Emily Litella “never mind” thing without having the class to apologize.
2) Defended sitting at home on your ass and not voting as a viable political strategy for perusing conservative objectives. 3) Been n obnoxious idiot.
None of that is “necessary” none of it is standing for anything other than not standing.

And the home of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Yay Nixon, was he a conservative? I’ve already established Regan wasn’t when he was governor.

I’m sure my parents would have never hired your mom as a nanny.

As if they could afford such a thing as a nanny. As if you had “parents” as in plural.

Carter says a lot of a stupid things that only stupid Democrats and RINOs (like you) believe.

There you go, lying again. You really do have a s#itty character.

Amazingly, you still must have some of that fifth essential food group laying around that my parents sold your parents.

The only thing your mother had to sell were her filthy, illegitimate, self-delivered, oxygen deprived, jumped up chimp-children that were the occasional product of her night train fueled grope-fests with whomever could choke back their own vomit in order to participate. Congratulations on somehow missing the roto-rooter that your governor made legal.

A word of advice, wheat thin boy. “Beclowned” doesn’t need a hyphen.

A word of advice, no one gives a rats ass that you can type up your posts in MS Word. It won’t make up for having nothing to say.

You have: 1) Sided with people who advocate voting for democrats to bring about the destruction of the GOP and/or the country.

Liar liar pants on fire.

When you finally showed that at least some of those supposedly conservative voters cast their ballots their Democrats, I immediately renounced them. Until then, all I did was defend the sentiments they expressed in this thread and demanded you prove your allegations.

2) Defended sitting at home on your ass and not voting as a viable political strategy for perusing conservative objectives

“Perusing.” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps you mean “pursuing”, in which case, yes, I do defend not voting for Democrats as the best way to pursue conservative objectives. And I don’t much care whether those Democrats call themselves Democrats or Republicans.

Yay Nixon, was he a conservative?

No, he was not. He was pretty damn liberal, and the country would have been better off without his presidency.

The National Review, in fact, refused to endorse Nixon for his re-election campaign in 1972. By that time, the NR editors had seen enough. Wage and price controls. Affirmative action. Ramping up inflation to spur economic growth to help his re-election campaign. Government spending at LBJ’s Great Society levels. It was all too much.

Even so, I don’t remember anyone calling Nixon a “Rockefeller Republican.” He was always a moderate and too obviously self-interested a politician to cling to any particular ideology. He was liberal at the time because he thought liberals had the upper hand.

3) Been n [sic] obnoxious idiot.

I certainly can be obnoxious, but if you want to see the best combination of obnoxiousness and idiocy, look in the mirror.

I’ve already established Regan [sic] wasn’t when he was governor.

You’ve established no such thing. You’ve established that you’re a dumbass, and your idiocy runs in the family.

There you go, lying again. You really do have a s#itty character.

You’re pretty obviously one of those guys who puts party above country. There’s no lie in pointing that out.